City Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the city commission meeting of the city of St. Pete Beach. Today is Tuesday, October 28th, 2025. It is 6 p.m. Let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Are there any amendments to the agenda? Mayor, I need to call roll. Yes, please do. Vice Mayor Marriott here. Commissioner Robinson here. Commissioner Rzniki here. Commissioner Maldonado here. And Mayor Petrilla here. We have a quorum. Thank you. All right. Any amendments to the agenda? Mayor, I'd like to add um an item 2B, employee of the fourth quarter presentation. And I have two items of discussion. Okay.

One would be for board member appointments and the other one would be best practices for St. Pete Beach traffic analysis.

Anything else? like to pull item F uh for discussion and I'd like to add the annual bonfire and pass a grill to the discussion please. So item 4F will just have that conversation at that time. Yep. And then adding item 7 C for the bonfire.

Correct. Thank you. Okay, I would like to add two items for discussion. One, 5G cell towers and two conversation on the board of adjustment. [snorts] Any other amendments? Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? I make a motion to approve the the agenda as [clears throat] amended.

Second. City clerk, if you please do a roll call. Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. Commissioner Robinson? Yes. Commissioner Rizniki? Yes. Commissioner Maldonado? Yes. Mayor Petrilla? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you.

All right. Next, we move on to presentation. the first one. I'm going to read it first. Um, so for those of you who don't know, uh, Linda Cheney, a resident of St. Pete Beach, she's also a representative at the state of Florida in the in the House of Yes, in the House. Um, and you know, having been involved in in the city for for a very long time. I won't say how long, but just a very very long time. She's been very generous. uh with her time um and involvement in the city and now serving in a state house. So, we've had this this huge project in St. Pete uh Beach and Passa Grill for the fire station that we're looking to rebuild. Uh that was already a big project on the books. It became even more urgent after they got hit by the hurricane and became essentially uninhabitable and and nonfunctional at this time. And if you just drive by down by the Dons Cesar at the Suntan Art Center, you'll see our temporary lodging for our fire department there. Um, but through all of her advocacy and efforts, um, Representative Cheney has brought down our cost uh, for the fire station 22, now [clears throat] with this additional check by $5 million. This is a cost from about 12 million. So almost half the cost. Um she was able to bring that back into the community. And so for that I have a proclamation I'm going to read and then uh Representative Cheney if you you don't mind. So this is a proclamation honoring Representative Linda Cheney for her support of the Pastor Girl Fire Station 22. Whereas the safety, resiliency, and well-being of residents and visitors of St. Pete Beach are of the utmost importance to our community. And whereas the St. P Beach Fire Station 22 serves as a vital lifeline to the southernmost neighborhood of the city, providing critical emergency response and

life-saving services. And whereas the mo the modern modernization and continued operation of fire station 22 is essential to maintaining highquality emergency services and preparing our community to meet the needs of the future. And whereas the state of Florida through the leadership and advocacy of Representative Linda Cheney secured an appropriation of an additional $3 million for the city of St. P Beach fire station 22. And whereas this investment represents more than financial supports. It demonstrates a shared commitment to public safety, community resiliency, and the strength of partnership between the state of Florida and the city of St. Pete Beach. And whereas the city of St. P Beach recognizes and sincerely appreciates Representative Cheny's dedication, leadership, and ongoing support for the needs of our city and its residents. Now, therefore, I, Adrien Petrola, mayor of the city of St. P Beach, Florida, do hereby proclaim our deepest gratitude and recognition to Representative Linda Cheney, for her commitment to public safety and her efforts to ensure a safer and more sustainable future for for the residents, visitors, and neighbors of St. Pete Beach and particularly for her advocacy in securing the funding for the Passogill Fire Station 22. Thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] Well, I did not expect that. [laughter] Thank you, Mr. mayor and commission and all of the residents of St. Pete Beach. Um, it's great to be amongst my peeps. I have been a resident here for almost 35 years and I was a district 2 city commissioner at one point and um I ended up in Tallahassee as a result of that. So, um it's great to be here. It's great to be able to support the community. I

think everyone knows there was um quite a battle up in Tallahassee this last session um over not only policy but over the budget and that was really at the heart of the disagreements was we wanted to make sure that the state was being responsible for the second uh year in a row we've had less spending than the previous year uh we passed $17.4 4 billion budget, but we also uh saw almost 550 million in vetos from the governor. Um, and one thing that the governor has consistently vetoed has been fire stations. And so for many, many communities got nothing for their appropriations requests or got a lot less than they asked for. So, for our city to get $3 million for our fire station is nothing short of miraculous. And I have to thank all of the my fellow legislators. I have to thank the governor um to make this possible for our community. And uh this is like I said, nothing short of a miracle. So, and I [applause] A lot of um my work was supported by your mayor and by the city manager. I you know it requires a lot of good solid information and collaboration to be able to advocate effectively for you all. So um they more than pulled their weight and that is not the case with all of the cities that I represent. A lot of times it's like pulling teeth to get what I need to be able to advocate for you. But that is not true in St. Pete Beach. You

um are well represented in Tallahassee by your team here in St. Pete Beach and up in Tallahassee. Woohoo. [laughter] [snorts] What's going on?

[laughter]

Oh, you know how bad I want to go like how bad I want to put my hand up. [laughter] [applause]

[snorts]

In that same vein of fun stuff, we also have our employee of the fourth quarter. Um, city manager.

Thank you, mayor and city commission. It's my honor to recognize Bobby Shelton as our employee of the fourth quarter. Bobby serves as our city arborist and his impact on our community has been nothing short of exceptional. Since the hurricanes hit, Bobby and his team have completely transformed the look and feel of our city. Through his leadership, expertise, and tireless work, our public spaces are once again looking clean, cared for, and beautiful. Bobby's dedication to his craft is evident in everything he does. He approaches each project with care, professionalism, and attention to detail. The results of his work can be seen across the entire city. But mo more importantly, beyond his technical skill, Bobby is known for his kindness and humility. He is the type of person who always takes a moment to greet each other, greet others with a smile, no matter how busy he may be. His positive attitude and approachable nature make him not only a valued employee, but also a wonderful ambassador for the city and hit its values. Bobby is also representing the city at the Tampa Bay Urban Forestry working group where he um is able to collaborate with other professionals and bring best practices back to um our region on the topics of our arborulture, public works, parks and recreation planning and environmental management for his professionalism, dedication and genuine commitment to our community. It is my privilege to congratulate Bobby Sheldon as our employee of the fourth quarter.

[snorts] Please come. [applause] [applause] Congratulations. Thank you very much. [applause]

City clerk, do we have any general audience comments? I have no audience comments. Thank you.

Okay. Next, we move on to the consent agend agenda. Commissioner Maldonado, I believe you wanted to have a conversation about the 4F and I have some too. I have a to pull.

Okay. Uh yes. I just wanted to get some clarification and then also for uh transparency just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing. So I understand that there is a desire to have the uh city commission designate the um appeal of section 3.14 to the special magistrate for 2814 passic railway. Is that correct? That is our first case that would fall within this uh designation if it were to be approved. Okay. So, is city staff requesting that all appeals now go before a special magistrate in lie of the commission?

My understanding wasn't in lie of the commission. The current land development code provides that the the um commission shall appoint a an attorney to hear these appeals. And so because we already have a land use um expert and attorney sitting as special magistrate, that seemed the natural um place to allow this appeal to take place. And also for the record, the commission would inevitably appoints the special magistrate through a contract. So you also have jurisdiction over who sits as your special magistrate as well. So it just seemed to be the most efficient way instead of bringing you separate counsel to hear these hearings which do not occur very often.

Correct. And I I agree that they don't occur very often. And my concern though is that we may be unintentionally seating some of our responsibilities to our constituents and I want to make sure that there's also nuances that get captured. So for example, in our district, you know, there's certain things that we look at from a historical perspective that may not apply to every district, although they do apply to certain districts throughout. uh but a special magistrate who is first in law may not understand the uh land development code or some of those special things that may transpire. So I want to make sure that that we're not locking ourselves into a situation where we're giving something and not being able to weigh in on it as a uh as a commission. So I'd like I'd like to hear how the other commissioners feel about this as well. So I I was going to pull this because I didn't really see how this relates. So what's the real world use case here? What why is this being brought forth and what what is it looking to accomplish? Because when I pull up the section that's that's mentioned here, that's just simply the section on that says this is how you appeal something. But what I'm not sure I understand what exactly we're appealing,

what types of appeals.

Yeah. So under section 3.14, an appeal to a hearing officer designated by the city commission may be taken by any person agreved by any final decision of the city manager of the city where it is alleged there is an error in an order, zoning permit, condition, requirement, decision or determination by the city manager in enforcing the land development code. An appeal shall be filed in writing honor before 30 days from the date of the administrative decision. This section does not apply to building permits. Um, and then it states that the city commission may appoint one or more hearing officers to hear such appeals as provided in the section. Such hearing officers shall be attorneys licensed to practice law in all state courts of the state of Florida and shall have been so licensed for a continuous period of at least five years up to the date of such appointment. So, the way the code is currently written, you would refer this to a hearing officer. Um, the city currently has a special magistrate that hears code enforcement cases. That is one potential place to [snorts] send it, which staff has the availability to do. We may need to amend the contract with the special magistrate. Um, to add the these appeals under 3.14 [snorts] to their contractual duties. Um, other cities, for example, for Myers Beach has sent them to hearing officers from the Division of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee and they conduct their appeal hearings by Zoom uh with DOA and they have a contract with the state of Florida who sends or provides an independent administrative law judge to hear local appeals and we could do that by contract opportunity. If you would like to hear administrative appeals as the city commission, um we could amend this section of the code instead of sending it to a special magistrate. Uh you would retain the ability to hear

appeals from decisions of the city manager. Now, the city manager also delegates decisions and takes input from staff, but um that would include planning decisions. Um those would if we amend the code, those could come to you for review. rather than to a to a hearing officer, but we would have to amend the code. So, right now would be to either appoint the existing special magistrate or a different special magistrate or utilize the state of Florida division of administrative hearings to hold these um administrative appeals. Commissioner Maldmnado, what is the property you and case you're referencing? Yeah, it was 2814 uh pass railway I believe is someone that's being reviewed uh in this particular case. But I also want to make the distinction that uh an appeal from for example the board of adjustments that would go to a circuit court whereas an appeal from the city staff or manager decision that comes to the commission. That's what we're talking about.

That's correct. It says any a person agreed by a final order of the city commission or any appointed board which would include the board of adjustment may appeal the order to circuit court. The appeal shall be filed with the circuit court honor before 30 days following the issuance of the final development order. And at that point, the Florida rules of appella procedure takeover. And what is filed on a quasi judicial decision is a petition for writ of sir shirari. An appeal of a decision that's legislated would be a declaratory judgment action or complaint. Um with regard to the facts of the very first appeal that has happened um this year in 2025 at the address um previously mentioned um there is a house that has goes all the way through from one main street to another main street. Um and the um code the land development code for fences and walls say that the walls in the front yard are limited to four feet where walls in the backyard can be six feet. Um, it was determined that under the way the code is written, this house is on a through lot. It has two frontage on both both streets. So, would have two front yards. and the interpretation and the decision was made that the fence wall height would be limited to 4 feet on both sides of the house where the applicant feels he would like to appeal um to obtain the six feet in what has been designed as the backyard as opposed to what's on on the road. So that similar to maybe an administrative interpretation. Um, so that's one example, perhaps the first example u that's been filed that would give you some context to determine whether this is something you think you want to have come to the commission in which case we would amend uh the code to

allow for that or would you rather still have it go to a hearing officer? So this in this particular case this was an administrative decision from the building department. Yeah. Building and planning. Yes. And how come it didn't go before the board of adjustment?

No variance was requested. They could have also requested a variance from the uh 4 foot requirement to go to six feet based on the design of a backyard but they elected instead to file an administrative appeal. Okay. Think in the correspondence both options were given to them and someone can do both. They can file a concurrent variance application with the board of adjustment and an administrative appeal. the two have different uh criteria that are applied to them.

In the variance, you have um an unnecessary an undue hardship variance and then you have a practical difficulties variance and you also have something called an administrative dimminimous variance uh which would be issued by staff without a public hearing. But the first two would go to the board of adjustment. And then from the board of adjustment, it would go to the circuit court based on the record that's created at the board of adjustment hearing based on transcripts and the evidence that was submitted. I don't have an issue listening to cases, especially if they're that few and far between. Um, I don't have an issue with that.

I think that, um, you know, this this this current appeal example is certainly one example there. It could be all kinds of things. Um, I I guess I don't have a real strong feeling about it either way other than if it's an if it's a an appeal to an administrative decision, then one would assume that the applicant feels like the staff is incorrectly interpreting our own rules. Correct. And so an administrative appeal would be to say, "Hey, I don't think you're interpreting your own rules correctly, and I want somebody else to look at this and decide if you're interpreting your own rules correctly." And so I think having somebody who is a a qualified land use attorney who although they're employed by the city as kind of a an an outside person who can, you know, look at the code and make an make that sort of determination is probably not a bad idea. um versus whoever five people are sitting here um where I don't know at that point we would be making a very defensible interpretation of the rules in a legal sense as much as we would just be de facto giving permission if we think they're a you know sympathetic applicant. I mean in that case we should just stop hearing CUP cases as well because we are making decisions based on our interpretation of the land development code the comprehensive plan and everything else. I I understand what you're saying.

Yeah. I'm just saying it if you take it to the extreme then we shouldn't hear anything at all. Sure. I I mean my my my biggest uh concern is that essentially we would be putting the magistrate in control of the city manager's decisions rather than the city commissioners ultimately. If you refine it and look at the end state of this is that we may be unintentionally usurping your authorities that we trust you with. So how do you feel about that? realms. It's your choice of which way you like to [clears throat] go. Well, there's pros and cons. I think you've put put them forward.

Um, typically it's a quasi judicial decision when you're reviewing these interpretations. Um, so you have to keep your legislative hat separate from your quasi judicial hat. If however, if you have an interpretation and you think that the city manager was right um but the laws should be changed or the ordinance should be changed, you would know about that right away and be able to direct staff to pursue ordinance amendments to address a particular issue.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope like the mayor has asserted. Then we start questioning cups and other things that we assume will be handled by the commission. And so and I I do see the argument for it. I understand staff's position that they want to have u as much maneuverability and flexibility in this and this does allow them or afford them one level. But at the same time I'm more concerned about giving away too much. So so if it wasn't the land development code I I would probably be leaning in a different direction. But because it is land development which is the purview of the commission you know when you look at the magistrate I mean they're really good at kind of black and white stuff and this thing is a little bit more nuanced and the reason we're even here having this conversation is because of all and we're going to have this conversation again in a little bit later today at least two more times is because we have many of our residents are in a position where they're rebuilding their homes. they're, you know, tearing homes down, building new and and I so part of the reason we have the commission, the board of adjustment, the planning board, is so that when you have issues as a neighbor, you can bring your issues to your neighbors and have a conversation about it and see if it makes sense for the community or not. And so I think keeping it with the commission does a couple things. one is alerts us of issues much sooner so that we can take action if necessary like we are doing today with the stairs. Um it also allows us to to look at it objectively and say okay you know as a community is there some is this how we want to operate or do we just want to be black and white and have zero nuance you know when you know when people are going to catastrophic situations and it's just you know this is well it's just that's just what it says that's what we're going to do. I'm not sure that that's really

the best path forward as as representatives of of the community to say and I think maybe it's not the first step but it should be a step in the process where somebody can come before the commission and say look here I think maybe the interpretation here was not the correct one and you know have an opportunity to sit before five and say you know plead your case and So in this particular instance, do we need to appoint a hearing officer if we so choose to do so or would it come before the commission? Um the way the code is currently written, you would appoint hearing officer either from the special magistrate or from DOA. Um if you would like to have hear these as the city commission, then we would amend this section of the code and bring the appeals before this body. who's currently appointed now.

Um, we haven't had um administrative appeal in quite a while. Um, we have a special magistrate, but I believe the contract only covers code enforcement. So, we would have to amend that to appoint the special magistrate to hear this or decide to go to the division of administrative hearings and conduct those hearings by Zoom with a independent administrative law judge from Tallahassee hearing the case. are typically experienced in land use, environmental, administrative matters. So, they can interpret codes, things like that. But they'll be doing that more like a judge than opposed to a quasi judicial quasi judicial decision.

Is there a cost to the applicant if it's if it's to the to the state? Right now, we charge a $500 fee for administrative appeals. Okay. So there'll be a co the contract will be be between the city of St. Pete Beach and the state. So we would pay the state. I had a concern with that actually. Um I mean if if we're wrong, why is somebody having to pay a fee to prove that they're right? I just part of the remedy to to ask for return. But I don't think we did that on the special magistrate.

We did still charge. Mhm. Right now, I think the special magistrate hears code enforcement cases, and if they bring the property into compliance, but the special magistrate found them not in compliance until the hearing, then typically they'll charge the administrative costs of the special magistrate's time uh for being there. I think it's 325 if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, I think it comes down to risk versus gain and I I don't see the gain outweighing the uh risk in this case.

It is also I guess I could point out it's a matter of delegation like you're saying do you want to delegate this authority to a hearing officer or do you want to retain this authority and decide it as a city commission? So, some cities have quite a lot of administrative appeals or maybe too many. It may be something you don't want to deal with. Um, and then you could delegate to another u board authority or hearing officer to hear these appeals. Another option would be to delegate it to say to the board of adjustment to have them hear the cases. Um the difference is they they um are not also a legislative body that would be able to recommend changes to a code as a result of an administrative appeal. It might be that you review an administrative appeal and say we uphold the city manager. That's how the code's written, but we think we should change the the code. So, please bring something back to us for review at the next meeting or in first and second reading and potential adoption of an amendment that would address the situation. One thing you see happen sometimes at board of adjustments, if you get a lot of variance applications for the same thing and and they're granted, it might mean that perhaps the code is not written to account for these um unforeseen circumstances and really should be amended, but then the board of adjustment keeps hearing them and hearing them and hearing them [clears throat] rather than the city commission hearing them and deciding, oh, this is something that we should address with an amendment. which would be a separate process. You couldn't do it right there in that hearing, but it you could implement the process or

and we have that exact situation today with item 53 5C where we've had repetitive issue before the board of adjustment and now today we're making an adjustment for that. So I'm I'm in favor of retaining that authority for the commission that this So I'm not sure how everybody else. So that would require a code change. So my question to the city attorney is for this particular case, do we have enough time to make a code change to delay the hearing or the

I think you process the application and then we go through first and second reading and then you could hear it um the next available meeting after that. Now, is it a code change if we're just saying we want to appoint ourselves if we don't have anybody appointed? Well, I think the safest thing would be to amend the code. You mean legally? Yeah. That way it solves any jurisdictional arguments. You know, someone were to file administrative appeal, lose the administrative appeal, and they want to appeal one issue, they can say, well, it was supposed to go a hearing officer and it was not sent there. So if you want to retain jurisdiction, we should we should amend the code

and I would say amend it.

We need consensus. I'm okay with the mending. Yeah. Listening to the discussion, I'm convinced that's fine. I like the idea of being able to be on top of of what needs change and to be able to help people quickly because nothing in government goes quick. I mean, ultimately, it's the best thing to do. You know, we we all still get to uh weigh in uh with the nuances for our constituents and our various um things that are going to be different about each district. So, I'm I'm very happy to to hear that. Okay, Commissioner Robinson, you had another item.

Yeah, I I wanted to pull a the minutes because I I wanted to add in there that wasn't in there. Um, I made specific reference to uh traffic safety concerns regarding the turn lane onto Mangrove Street. Um, Mangrove over here and the short turn lane off of the bridge and uh with there being a relatively high rate of speed off that bridge and Sunrunner being in the other lane. So, I'd like to amend those to include that. I can amend the minutes and Okay. So, with that, we are pulling item 4F.

Is there a motion to approve the amended consent agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the amended consent agenda. I second. City clerk, if please do roll call. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner Rizniki, yes. Commissioner [clears throat] Maldonado, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott. Yes. Mayor Petrilla. Yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Next, we have ordinances. And before we begin, city attorney, would you mind just um I see that 5 A and 5B are first and final reading of the same ordinance. Would you mind just clarifying?

Um 5 A will read together with 5 C. Oh, no, sorry. Excuse me. 5A will read together with 6A and these both involve the Corey Landings project like we did last time. And then if you pass it at first reading, um it was advertised tonight for final reading and then in the notices. So you could go forward tonight. If you pass at first reading it and want to wrap it up, you could do a second reading tonight or you could schedule the second reading for a subsequent meeting. And of course there's nothing that requires you to approve the first reading even this though this is the second continued first reading. So this leaves your options open. So first I'll read 5A and 6A if we can hear those together and then depending on what happens there we may or may not get to 5B. Okay.

I just want to confirm that. So there's no issue with having first and final reading on the same day. Um, no. Because you've advertised the second reading for tonight. The first reading was continued today. So, you could have them both on the same night, but you have to vote on them separately. Open them. Open the first readings first and then if you those both pass and you decide you want to hear the second reading tonight, you can do that if you wanted to. You don't have to. Okay?

If you're not going to, then you should pick a date certain for the second reading. Then we won't have to readvertise. Okay? Thank you. So, first reading of ordinance 2025-20, an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, approving with reservation criteria and conditions the allocation of additional units of residential density from the general residential unit RU density pool reserve as established in the city of St. P Beach comprehensive plan and implemented through the city's land development code to the proposed Corey Landings development project requested under companion resolution 2025-23 generally located at 10 Corey Avenue and reverting 150 units awarded under ordinance 202203 to the name density pool reserve providing for severability correction of scrivener's errors construction publication and an effective And item 6A will be heard concurrently. This is resolution 2025-23, a resolution of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, approving and authorizing conditional use permit 255069 for the development of the mixeduse Corey Landings project gently located at 10 Corey Avenue pursuant to section 4.7 of the land development code providing for correction of scrivener's errors and an effective date.

[clears throat] Okay, where we left off last time, just to make sure that we're all on the same page, we concluded with [clears throat] uh with audience comments for the conditional use application. So, we will not have a second set of audience comments. Correct. You can.

Okay, we can. Um and then we went on to having a conversation about conditions with the applicant and after that we instructed the staff uh to go back and hammer out a couple more points. So I think maybe where we start is by going over those changes so that we're up to speed as to where we are in the process. Now

sounds Thank you, Mr. Mayor. city commission as directed by you uh at the last first reading. Um staff has had several meetings with the development team and um we spent hours of exchanging ideas and discussing uh the community interests that you shared with us during that meeting as well as the public. And we are pleased to uh present as directed a very clean copy of uh conditional uh issues or items that that you asked us to discuss. We are going to kick this off with Brandon Barry presenting to you the changes in the conditions that occurred between the last meeting and tonight. and then we will move to the applicant who uh also has some presentation as well as some administerial items that she's going to present and has already worked with staff and we are in agreement. So with that, Brandon,

I need to swear in anyone who will be testifying this. Oh yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Are there any changes to the exparte disclosures from the first first reading? No. Let the record reflect there's no additional exparte. No, I've I've talked to some other people. I've talked to more residents. So, I will include that and as well read this full packet, the revised. Okay. Yeah, we've at least I've received additional emails and reviewed the additional package.

Same. residents in the packet. Yep. Likewise, uh discussed it during a community meeting, received additional feedback, and received the updated packet. Same [laughter] ditto.

All right. Good evening, Brandon Barry, planner. I will just be going over what was published in the packet. I know at the last meeting there were several different versions of the resolution and ordinance. what was published with your packet on Thursday is the same exact version I'm going to be speaking about. We have not made any modifications since. So, some of the major items that have been added to this resolution that were not present in the one published for the first reading. The applicant has agreed to a one-time $150,000 contribution towards park maintenance cost. And additionally, the cost of designing and constructing a park shade structure as have been discussed that is independent of park impact fees to be paid at time of development. The applicant has agreed to a onetime $100,000 contribution towards traffic calming that would be paid at time of certificate of occupancy for the certificate of occupancy for the first mixeduse building. That is independent of transportation impact fees to be paid which are estimated to be in the city's favor approximately 133,000 based on the uses that are currently proposed in square footages. The applicant is as mentioned at the prior meeting has agreed to provide the actual and documented costs not to exceed $250,000 for pipelining and manhole repairs between their project site and pump station one. We have the named manholes in the resolution that excludes the segment of their project between their project site and Bokea Drive which will be replaced by the applicant. This cost also excludes sewer connection contributions that will be paid based on the total unit count and square footage of the commercial space within the development. Based on staff estimates that will be approximately $425,000. I did want to state that and we have our public services director here to confirm this. He has run the numbers. The $250,000 should cover what we know to be the needed repairs for that segment independent of the pipe replacement. I

believe they came up with an estimate of about 246,000. So just under what the applicant has agreed to provide. Prior to construction, the applicant will survey road conditions along their construction site traffic route and is agreed to repair any damage that exceeds normal wear and tear for any public benefits of the subject project not provided within 24 months subsequent to certificate of occupancy for the first mixeduse building. The applicant will bond the amount of those remaining public benefits. As was discussed at the last meeting, there is no accompanying development agreement. Typically de development agreements would uh state those the timing of these improvements but they have agreed to provide a bond for anything that has not been completed 24 months after the first building receives a co. They have increased the number of class A those are the transient dock slips from 4 to 8. They have also agreed if their land lease is amended to provide for such one of them may contain a kayak launch. That is in line with what was approved under the original uh vested approval back in 2022. We have addressed the cure period for compliance with conditions. It was proposed to be 30 days. It has been reduced to 7 days. However, if the applicant is working in good faith to resolve any violations that are not related to construction site traffic management or the construction site management in general, uh they are able to continue working to resolve those violations after the 7-day period has elapsed. the building official. Um, this is just an affirmation of their right. Um, they have a right to levy fines or issue stop work orders for violations of the construction site management plan or the truck routing plan, which will be addressed at the site plan stage. We've had other conditions and other conditional use permits in the past related to minimum standards for achieving um sewer impact reductions and

they have agreed to earn at least five points in the lowflow fixture or EPA water sense scoring section of the Florida Green Building Coalition certification. In other projects, we've seen lead certification which has a minimum just to qualify for that certification, a minimum reduction of approximately 20%. They have agreed to what I believe is an equivalent five points in that uh section W4 of the Florida green building certification which um will result in fixtures being installed. They've reduced gallons per minute and flush per um per flush of 20 to 30% below federal maximum. So that would be equivalent to that minimum lead certification. Prior to issuance of a certificate of concurrency as we provided for the original project, the vested project, um it had made it to the certificate of concurrency stage. At the time there was a cert conditional certificate of concurrency issued for traffic concurrency. Um that there would be monitoring of conditions for the southbound turn lane onto Mangrove from the Corey Causeway. um the western side of the Corey causeway. We will engage with FDOT at the concurrency stage to see if that is still a concern for them based on current conditions and project impacts. The applicant has also agreed to provide no turn signs on Bay Street for construction traffic which would be oriented interior to the construction site. There were a few other items that were requested by staff. Those are also listed in the agenda report, but those are the modifications by and large that were made to the resolution. There were some change outs of conditions and and better organization of the resolution, but those are the significant modifications. Do you have any questions for staff prior to the applicant?

Yes. for traffic calming. You have a 100,000, correct? Yes. I think somewhere it said I I could see how you could swap a seven for a one, but it said 7 750. You're saying K, right? Yeah. 750,000 versus 100,000.

Our requests had originally been much higher, but I believe the resolution reflects that is contribution 1J. That is a onetime $100,000 payment. page is that that is on resolution page six. Um I don't have the packet page. Okay.

That is condition one. Um item J. $100,000 is what the applicant agrees to. Okay. Are other questions for Brandon?

Thanks.

The applicant is ready. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, everybody. Brian Vanlike for the applicant for the record. Um, just want to take a moment and and hopefully you can see we've been working diligently with staff. We had several meetings. Uh, a little bit of push and pull. Um, they they pushed us hard. Um, but uh I I think we've come to a a good resolution, one that we're we're happy to support. Uh, in preparing for the meeting, I I just I I came across something. I believe it was Commissioner Amald Donado that that made a comment, and I'm going to paraphrase, but this needs to be more than a business transaction. It needs to benefit the community, have community value, and and we agree. Um, it got me thinking a little nostalgic of of, you know, why do I do this? Because trust me, there's a lot easier ways to make money than to do what we do. Um, but I I got into this industry as a young teenager. uh actually dug ditches, did concrete work at the age of 14. Uh OSHA wasn't really a thing then. Um but um the the thing that struck me and stayed with me was that what we did had a permanent lasting impact, right? It just wasn't a construction project. We we created something. We created a space. We made pla places for people to live where businesses can thrive. and that that led me to this career and all these years later it it it's still what I'm doing. So we think there is intrinsic value in in what we're proposing in Cory Landing on its own. Right? We're we've had a site that's been neglected and derelict for decades. Uh hasn't been contributing to the community at all. It's actually been a a detriment to the community. So we're cleaning that up. We're going to provide residences where permanent residences are going to live. They're going to become and and weaved into the fabric of your community. Um, we're also going to provide a mixeduse component with uh

restaurants, retail that's going to provide jobs. The residences will provide jobs. It'll it'll impact Corey Landing um and and I'm sorry, the rest of Corey Avenue and impact those businesses. Right. it it's going to help be a spark to the the rebirth of Corey Avenue. So, we think there's a lot of benefit um on top of financial benefit, tax base, um all the impact fees, but you know, we heard you and and we believe we've responded, you know, for additional benefits on top of just what the project brings. So, uh, we appreciate, uh, the city manager working with us and her team, and I'll turn it over to Elise so she can, you know, further explain where we've we come. But again, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening. For the record, Elise Batsel on behalf of the applicant. Uh, before we start start, I just have a few things to submit into the record. And we have one housekeeping item on a condition that we realized we didn't modify. I think it was a request that you had Commissioner Resniki. So we just want to put that up. Can you distribute those Suz? We have shared these with staff and they have no objections to the change. Would you mind putting the overhead on as well? So, as you can see on the screen, we agreed in the last hearing that the city that the seaw wall warranty would be 18 months or the greater of what the contractor provided. So, we just wanted to make sure that that got into the record and we did honor that commitment in our conditions.

Thank you. So, you expressed a number of concerns at the last meeting. Commissioner Robinson, you said, "What would the impact be to traffic if we took Saturday traffic counts?" Mr. Mayor, you asked us, "What are we going to do about the impacts to the ride ofways from the regular traffic that's going to be driving generated by our project?" Commissioner Robinson, you asked us how are we going to address traffic calming and will the applicant be willing to increase the number of boat slips from four to eight. I don't remember if that was you mayor.

Commissioner Marriott, you ask us if we would be willing to add a kayak launch. And Commissioner Resniki, you asked us whether we would be willing to add a shade structure in the park and what will that look like? Commissioner Maldonado, you did ask that we make sure that we are providing an investment into the community. And I think that when you hear the reasoning and we really drill down on the conditions that we're presenting tonight, I believe I think our team believes and I hope that the city manager and her staff believe after two weeks of exhaustive meetings and lots and lots of of pushing and pulling um that we've brought to you something that you can be proud of and that you can go back to your constituents and say that you worked very hard to make us do what we needed to do and that this project could be an example for other projects that move forward in the future. So, I want to talk quickly and introduce Becca Bond to address the Saturday traffic counts. Thank you and good evening. Um, again, Becca Bond, transportation engineer, licensed professional engineer, and um, certified planner. So, as Elise mentioned, we heard you about the concerns with Saturday traffic. So, we actually the past two Saturdays, so Saturday, October 18th and Saturday, October 25th, collected counts from 1 to 4:00 p.m. So that we were able to compare those weekday PM peak hour counts to the Saturday counts. Before comparing these weekday and Saturday volumes, we did adjust the counts for peak season. Uh we using the PE FDOT peak season conversion factor, which is the industry standard practice. So no matter what time of year you collect those counts, you apply that peak season conversion factor that is determined by the date of the counts collected. So specifically for the counts that we collected on October 18th and October 25th, those were grown by

11% and 9% respectively so that they reflect accurately the peak season. Overall, the PM peak hour volumes were higher than the Saturday volumes observed along the study area roadways with one exception. the westbound volumes along 75th Avenue were higher during the Saturday peak hour which does align with the beach traffic here. So using those volumes, we conducted the traffic analysis for the Saturday peak. So we used the same methodology that we used for the weekday PM peak hour for the Saturday peak hour and the increased volumes along 75th Avenue westbound did not impact the outcome the ultimate outcome of the analysis. So the study area roadways still had adequate capacity and the study area intersections also uh operated adequately. On this next slide, you'll see that we also took into account the concern with the turn lane. So we reran our analysis. We had the PM analysis already done. We also ran the analysis for that Saturday peak hour. and the synchro model showed a uh vehicle queue of less than one vehicle in both the PM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour. So on this slide um I've also included a snip of the exhibit 212 from FDOT's Florida design manual which shows the required turn lane lengths for different speed limits. So you'll see for this segment along 75th Avenue, the total required deceleration distance is 145 ft. So to determine the full left turn lane that would be required would be that 145 ft plus the Q length that's observed. So that is less than that 195 ft existing turn lane that's out there. However, we still hear your concern. And so as mentioned by uh Brandon, there is a condition that will also address this at final site plan.

I'm gonna hand it back to Elise. I I do want to say though that that uh 195 you said turn lane it's not even close to that. I mean I have a document here that I'm happy to submit from um Ford Panelis um and they've even said that it's 171. So there's there's the info is where it's measured including the taper length. So that is included in the FDOT 212 manual. they include the taper length in their full length requirement. Um, however, even if it is 171, that's still adequate for the required turn lane length to accommodate the queue.

And people do go faster than 35 over that bridge. So there is and on top of that to the right hand lane you have the Sununner, a bus stop. So again, I'm going to state I have real safety concerns with that turn lane onto Mangrove, not Magnolia, onto Mangrove Avenue.

Yes. And we did study Mangrove. Yes, that's what's included. Uh and again, that's included in the condition. So it'll be looked at again and the part of the condition is that they will approach FDOT. So understand your concern and it will be looked into. And before you used a 1% growth factor, was that correct? That was the um background growth. So the background growth, correct? Are you exponentially per year? Yes. All over the same methodology was used. Correct.

Okay. Well, I I just question that because I get to this and it says here that that um capitalizing on sunb belt migration uh the concentration in the southeast US states expected to experience population growth of 8 to 16% between 2020 and 2030. I know that's a growth percent and not necessarily traffic, but even at 2% or 1% uh per year is very conservative. As a matter of fact, your study from the last time said 2% now you're down to 1%. Because this is

I think we should probably clarify for the record the 2% and the 1% just for the record because they're not the same numbers. Can you clarify that again for the record? which 2% growth factor in the original study versus the 1% I'm not I I'm not sure if you're referring to the 2% in the previous approved study in the previous study.

So the way that that's calculated is using the past five years of FDOT volume data at their closest count stations to our project which was approved in our methodology that was reviewed by the city's consultant. So the reason that the de data is different because the five previous years for that analysis is a different five years than it is today. So in addition to that growth rate, exponential growth rate, we also included the approved developments that are vested on top of that growth rate for the city,

right? But even those did not use the Saturdays and they didn't use the correct peak hours. So all all that's, you know, pretty much garbage in, garbage out in my opinion. So th those were not correct to begin with. Uh Becca, I think it'd be important for you to state um on the record the issues with respect to the functionality of that intersection and your findings as a professional transportation engineer. And then the city's transportation engineer is also here. He can address those as well.

Yeah. Well, I will say that the growth rate it all of this is based on the industry standard. We have also considered the Saturday counts. We have, you know, gone above and beyond what is required by your code. And I will say that it is my professional opinion based on the analysis that we have conducted that it is to industry standard, that it is conservative and that we it does have adequate capacity to support this traffic generated by this development and those intersections are operating adequately based on the analysis and all of the industry standards that were followed for this project. And likewise, I'm going to pass this out to this is from Ford Penelis.

We'd appreciate having a copy if it's going to be submitted in the recording. And just a clarification on the record, you mentioned population growth rate. I think what you were referring to were cultters materials with respect to their financial and technical capability. Um they were talking about the southeastern states where they do business and that's not necessarily the growth rate here in St. Pete.

No, I understand. But again, I can say that the there's a high growth rate in the Tampa area. Tampa St. Pete area and you can just look at downtown St. Pete and see that. So, you know, 1% is is really conservative. Would you like me to go on? So to address the two other issues that we talked about, which was traffic calming and trips on the roadway, I I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't bring up the fact that the existing traffic on the roadway, the purpose of an impact fee is to pay for the anticipated cost of those no new trips onto the roadway. Um, for the record again, the applicant is paying a transportation impact fee in the amount of $21,28 for those exact anticipated trips. Um, that $108,652 is the city portion. Uh you already heard testimony during the first hearing from Becca that when you look at the existing approval and what trips are on the road that could be built today by right under the existing CUP, this project will decrease the PM peak hour trips by 75. So so 75 less trips. And again, you're not looking at this as a clean slate. you are taking an existing project that has approved entitlements and determining whether this modification is in the best interest. And we believe that that dis decrease of 75 p.m. peak hour trips is a benefit. However, despite all of that, we have created this bucket of funds. And one of the things we talked a lot with Francis and city staff about is, you know, we talked

about traffic calming. talked about the need for, you know, resurfacing if there were trucks and we came up with a couple of conditions that addressed that. The first one dealt with damage to the roadway as part of the construction process. If one of our trucks, you know, is in the middle of the road and they dump concrete all over, right? We have to pay for that direct damage. But we created this bucket of funds so that the city can determine what they want to do with it. And we didn't limit it to this particular project. We didn't say that those funds needed to be used in the surrounding roadways. We said this is a fund for the city to determine where you'd like to put traffic calming. You have a process when a neighbor wants to go in and have traffic calming. You survey the neighbors and then you do a warrant study to determine if traffic calming is necessary. This would provide funds to do all of that and to pay for traffic calming, to pay for roadway improvements and whatever the city uh would like. With respect to the eight transient slips, uh there was a request of course to increase the slips from four to eight. The applicant has agreed to do that and to provide eight transient slips. The transient slips will be available for the public use upon the opening of the restaurant or the park. So, as soon as those public spaces are open, those will be available to make sure that they're servicing those spaces. One thing that I did want to offer and we did do this after we published the agenda is Commissioner Resniki, you said we need a definition of what a transient doc is. So, we created a definition. We did run it by staff and we want to pass that out for your review. Oh, you already did. Thank you. I'm just going to read it into the record. The term privatelyowned transient docks shall mean for the purposes of this condition those privatelyowned docks available to the

public for temporary recreational use only. The owner may establish reasonable rules and regulations for the use of the transient docks subject to all vessel size limitations, use restrictions, and other conditions set forth in the submerged land lease. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, no person shall be permitted to remain on a vessel while docked except while loading and unloading and no overnight mooring is permitted. Uh we did craft that specifically in conjunction with staff. The idea of these transient docks and transient slips is that people are coming and they're using them like a parking space, right? They're not using them to party. They're using them to come and to go and make it a transient slip. Um, so this is what we're offering as a proposed definition that will be include, excuse me, included in the final conditions.

One question about the um the dock slips and when they become available. Sure. Um, is it as soon as either a restaurant or the public park is open? Yes. So, whichever comes first. Yes. Okay. Yeah. do it simply because everything's going to be constructed at the same time, but while construction is going on, we're really hesitant to have people coming onto space in the middle of construction and construction staging. Certainly, I was thinking more in terms of the public park is open for some reason. You cannot find a tenant for the restaurant for three years, right? It's the first of whichever is first. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

I do want to put this into the record. It it was very this was a really painful one for Brian and his team because you have the cost of the construction of the docks which is 52,000 per dock approximately. But then you have the opportunity cost. You know these docks sell for a lot to go with these private residents. So these eight slips collectively would have been about a million dollars in revenue that would have gone to the developer. But I will give Francis and her staff, you know, credit. they they pushed very hard for this and we knew that it was very important. Um so that is part of the package that we're offering tonight the public kayak benefit. So we are agreeing to go in and to modify the permit and I just want to read a little language just so that you understand. We are going to apply for a modification to the existing permits. As you know, these docks are previously permitted by all the existing governmental agencies. And so it will permit the installation of the kayak launch within the submerged lease land lease area. I'm going to just move forward. This black line around the docks, that's the boundary of the submerged land lease that we have control over. And so we've written into the condition that the city recognizes that when we get this launch permitted should the governmental agencies allow that and permit that it likely will take up one of the slips because we only have that the boundary of that land. So we just wanted to make sure that the commission understood that. So if we if we end up with seven boat slips and one kayak launch, you'll understand why. And this is contingent on you actually receiving a permit variance. So if you do not then you're still doing the eight.

That's right. We have to go we have to apply for you know and and seek the permit. Again it's subject to all kinds of local you know you have three or four different layers of regulatory agencies provided that they will permit it. We will absolutely you know install it and construct it and pay for it. Thank you. You're welcome. Sorry I went backwards. Sorry, what was that picture? Of course, sewer. Um, Brandon covered the sewer.

However, I just wanted to read into the record a little bit of language. Oh, we forgot shade structure. I'm sorry. Let me go back. I think Thank you. There we go. So, another bucket that we wanted to explain when we were meeting with staff. Um, you had issues about the maintenance of the park, the request for a shade structure, and Commissioner Resniki, you talked a lot about the fact that we weren't inviting, we weren't doing anything to invite the public in to make it a place where people want to come. So, I I want to give a little bit of a shout out to Laura Canary because she brought up this idea of placemaking and programming. And so what we came up with in connection with staff is this bucket of money for the parks and the public areas. This money can be used to fund maintenance, programming, placemaking, um any other park related activities that the city would like. And what's important that it's not just the park itself, it's all of the open quote public property. And that is defined in the conditions as all of the public land within the project site excluding Coulter's land. So this this could be improvements to along the sidewalk if you wanted to do something. It could be improvements in the park area, in the plaza, all of those public spaces. Um we've agreed to fund $150,000 for those purposes for the city to use at their discretion. Uh, in addition, we did agree to design, construct, and install the shade structure that you requested, and we will work with the city manager during site plan approval to pick the location and the exact design. I know Steve was working with our landscape architect to draw up something. I don't know if you want to offer that now or I know just talk a little bit.

right here. Could you please switch to the overhead? Thank you.

Hi, for the record, Steve Barber with the applicant. Uh, so this is a concept that we presented to city staff last week. Um, what you see is the city's portion of the seaw wall at the end of the park. This is the the kind of the light brown area is the pavered area. What we're proposing is a is a pavilion structure. It would be a partial shade structure probably 50% or so um with some fixed benches and tables, you know, just to in in line with making this more of a destination part of the the um waterfront access by the public. And incidentally, this is above and beyond the $150,000 place making fee. This is a cost that that we will bear ourselves and we'll work with the city manager to to finalize the design. you know, in in concept, what we're thinking is uh you know, it's a a structure designed not to impede water views. So, it might have an angled look like this, but um you know, it'll be a great place for families to go out and picnic or en enjoy the park.

Thank you. [clears throat]

and and Brandon mentioned the sewer additional public benefit. Um, but this is the area from the project out to the road that's already going to be covered by our development. Once we get out to Corey Avenue, it will line the manholes and also the pipes. Another thing the city asked for that we were not offering during the last hearing from our project where that meets Corey all the way up to pump station one. So we will pay for the actual documented costs of that not to exceed $250,000. So we we snipped this doesn't include of course adorum tax impacts impact fees ad valorum tax revenue but these are the direct benefits and a comparison because as as you know tonight you're going to be determining whether you keep the existing cup in place or whether you allow these modifications to the cup and the reduction in density to move forward with these additional public benefits. So, as you can see, the new net funds, um, and this does not the $632,000 doesn't include the docks. We already talked about the fact that that dock was really a huge cost to the developer and we believe a huge benefit for the community. But if you take that line item out, there's 632,900 additional dollars plus the docks for a total of 5,600 sorry 5,649,565. If if you look at the existing CUP, you're getting 2.5 million almost more than what they offered you for 150 units out of the development out of the density pool. We're asking for 24 for almost double that amount. Um and of course if if they proceed by right after

the cup expires, you know, there's zero for the city. So with that, we want to open it up to questions for you regarding the conditions. Um all of our team is here. I know that you've vetted these and looked at the conditions before the hearing, but we're happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Commissioners, questions, comments, just have one commissioners Nikki.

Um, first I wanted to thank you all for all the time going through this after the I'm sure it was a hard two weeks, but um it sounds like you were listening um to what many of us were talking about. Um there was just one thing that I wanted um because I've always mentioned this before in prior um conditional applications about the landscaping native Florida and I know at least you've heard me say this a thousand times but I know we have it set at 50 less at least 50% I think it was but I would always want us to strive for more than that. Um, I think I saw in and I can't remember the page, but I saw it somewhere, um, a listing of some of the of of the plants. And I'll just mention one, uh, palm that drives me crazy. Foxtail palm somewhere in this large packet of 600 pages. Um, which is a horrible palm tree for me. [laughter] But um I say [clears throat] that, you know, I I hope that in the development or the landscaping that we're working closely with the city and and possibly others who are very familiar with uh the native um invasive and and those that um like boxail palms um require a lot of maintenance um to keep them looking pretty. Um, so just, you know, I want to make sure that that's stated that that we really are striving for higher than 50% on Florida native plants. Um, especially the park. I know we mentioned like trellis as possibly part of the the shelter, which is an opportunity um for um Florida native plants that um could go on the trellis, right? that could attract uh butterflies, you know, I hate to say bees, but bees, which are very important pollinators, but um things of that nature that um bring what Florida is to that park.

So, before Keith Keith Marorrow is our landscape architect, but before he uh before he comes in, I want to direct you to a couple of conditions that are in the conditions that we didn't talk about. They weren't changes from the last condition, but in those conditions when with respect to landscaping in the park, the city manager has the ability to modify that and value engineer that landscaping. And so when we go through site plan approval and we sit down and we get very much into the details of the landscape plan, if the city manager determines that we need to have different varietals or the lower maintenance or a higher percentage at that point in time, we're we're obligated to work with her under those conditions and provide that. We always hesitate to commit to a higher percentage because it looks kind of scrappy. So, you're always trying to make it look pretty and also be very Florida native friendly. So, I'll let I'll let Steve

I'll just I'll just say Florida NA is pretty [laughter] there a lot of pretty ones. So, good evening. Thank you. We live in Florida. Good evening. Uh for the record, Keith Maro Maro Design. Uh certainly we will work uh with city and staff to uh substitute if and when necessary for those elements. uh though the plans have changed several times through the process. I do believe we certainly exceed probably in the range of you know north of 60% on both native and uh Florida friendly species. So sorry Keith Marorrow Marorrow design you did got it.

Any other questions? Thank you sir. Thank you. Does the applicant have any objection to hearing additional audience comments? Should there be any

I'm sorry. Sorry. We're happy to hear a comments provided that we have the opportunity to have the last word and to speak to preserve our due process rights. We'd appreciate that. And I do want to make a correction on the record. I said 24 again. We are asking for 25 units. It's ingrained in my head. So correction for the record. Thank you, city clerk. Are there any additional audience comments on this topic? I have no audience comments. Okay. Thank you. [laughter]

Right. Thank you very much. comments, discussion. I am uh pleased to hear the uh developers comments that they were hearing, you know, and looking at this as more than just a business transaction. And you know, that's something that's important to the community uh at large and um certainly much appreciated that you took the time to go back and look at that. So I I just wanted to say thank you. I think I made my comment already, so [laughter] we're good. I will say that um I I think from a resident standpoint um this project does have a better appeal um than the other project primarily because of the uh luxury for condo aspect the you know pride and ownership versus renters. Um big difference there. Um, I will say you giving back 125 units density doesn't really mean too much because I look at the number of toilets that you've got here, 394 for for this project and 361 for the prior project. So, I'm looking at things like that um that we've got a little bit reduction in traffic, but then we have more more toilets. we um hopefully we'll have we will have repairs done to the

sewer system and we won't get a huge impact from that. Um but um I guess there's a concern as well with what we're getting for um you know how you define units versus density, what does it really mean in the scheme of things? Um, so, uh, so it's back to what is that worth really? Um, the 25 units. I have concerns still with the fact that we're giving up a third of the the first park there to a uh, fire truck pad and then there's three um, Duke Energy Transformers right behind it, which aren't shown in any of the pictures um, that they're there and they're not going to move. Um, I I don't understand why they're in the park and not on an easement or in the property itself. Can somebody explain that to me?

Good evening, commissioners. Scott Gilner with Kimley Horn. The they're not transformers. They're actually vaults for Duke Energy and they're actually the subacquous lines coming along across from St. Pete and they power your entire island. They're there now. Okay. So, they're not something we're placing there. They're there and they're in your right of way and they're going to stay there. We didn't want to move them. We didn't think that was a good idea to take out power to the island. No. No. Great. But, uh, just from a pictorial standpoint, it does say transformers on it. They're they're they're not transformers. They're outgrade.

They're basically flush with the surface. It's like a water meter or any vault box or fiber optic that you would see anywhere. Um, for the record though, also toilets. We don't even have a fixture count breakdown yet. So, I'm not sure where you got 394 toilets. That doesn't exist yet. It's a count from how many units um unit two bedroom two bath two and a half bath. It's in the plans. It It's you can count through the count. So, I'm not Oh, okay. Well, I'm just counting from the less toilets and and fixtures in in the 133 units than it will be for the the apartments.

[snorts]

So, I think this is a a a nice project. Um, I think that, uh, what I've heard from the public at meetings and around town is that, uh, people are by and large for it. I know the folks that have businesses on Corey Avenue are very excited to have something like this happen uh, at the end of Corey and for there to be a uh, you know, to to turn an area that right now is kind of nothing into something. Um, and I think that uh this is, you know, I'd love to see a ferris wheel at the end of Corey, but you know, to a new nice condo on the beach and to not have to leave St. Pete Beach to a new nice condo on the beach and to not have to leave St. Pete Beach and to have an option for somewhere to go. Um, and I think that's worth a lot. I think it's worth it that, you know, we we can keep some of our residents in St. Pete Beach because they'll have a place that they can purchase that they want to live. I'm not really concerned about traffic. You know, the yacht and tennis club um condos at the north end of the beach in my district have over 300 units. Um you would think that with 300 units up there, the traffic on Blind Pass coming from Treasure Island or turning right off of 75th onto Blind Pass would be horrific. Um, and I think three times today I walked across Blind Pass Road at about 77th without even looking either direction because there was [laughter] not a single car car on the road. Um, Silver Sands over by Uppam has about 300 units and, uh, and there's really no traffic going in and out of there either. And so, um, for me, I'm not very concerned about the traffic. I think this is just by and large a a nice project that has a lot of good benefits for the city. Um, and I I think I think it's pretty well done. I think it will

be an asset to the city and so I think it's a a a good thing.

Thank you, Commissioner. like to add uh just one final comment and that's that I'm just going back and looking at this between the existing CUP the byite and the proposed CUP and uh I see nothing but uh an improvement and a benefit to the city. So I just wanted to highlight that and go back to that for a second. I'm going to go back to traffic again because uh where you're talking about over at the yach club estates or um over on that corner and north that is an immediately adjacent to everybody coming on and my concern is immediately coming on. You have everybody that's coming onto the island plus you have this development and the short distance over the bridge to the turnlight. That's the concern. And as well there's residential streets surrounding it. Those two properties you talked about don't have the residential streets around them to to avoid coming down Corey or going down other lanes. So those are the concerns of the traffic. So over the last few years, we've seen our fair share of developments being proposed in this community. I may even have random platform on that. Um, what I can tell you is this is the first time I've received an overwhelming amount of support from the community. I think they should tell the applicant and developer and future developers should take note of of this applicant's um the way that they've conducted themselves throughout the process, the project that they came forward with um because it gives you a good sense of what the community is actually looking

for, right? So having permanent residents condos versus transient apartments, that's something that the community overwhelmingly seems to support. Um so that's that's a check mark in your favor for this project. Um the reduction in density is is certainly very much appreciated. Um and you know looking at you know Commissioner Robinson's comments on traffic. Um in principle I I would agree with you. I think though if we look at the numbers not just the traffic study but when you look at the numbers of units um you know the reduction by almost 50% of units from what was previously proposed and then also looking at our you know demographic composition as to how many people live here full-time versus how many people live part-time especially when you look at condos versus single family homes

I think what you might find is that people that buy condos are probably here less than 50% % of that time and not contributing to the to the same amount of traffic as having you know 300 apartments.

Um and also looking at again just the data that we have from from you know condos generally two people you know it's might be two they could have three toilets but it doesn't matter it's just still two people at the end of the day. Um so I think the the entire you know traffic city usage sewer usage infrastructure usage is significant there's a significantly lower strain on on everything when you look at as a whole for a residential condominium versus transient res you know residential rental units. Um so that is one um to me is is a huge again for anyone else looking to do something in St. Pete Beach take a look at what this applicant is doing uh gives you a good idea. The other the second part of it is again to the applicant's credit um you know no one ever comes here with an ugly project right no one comes here with buildings from the Soviet East block and say let's build this right everyone has beautiful architecture um and so you do have you know the aesthetics are you know it's a very nicel looking project but more importantly are the community benefits right rarely do we have people come in and say look let's be partners in this community and because is we want to be invested in this community. Here's how we want to contribute to the community. Right? And while I appreciate the monetary contribution as much as anyone does, I think there is an intangible intangible components that you know for the long term are worth far more I think to the community and to me. So having a park that the community can use at a property that has been essentially useless for 20 plus years, having boat slips that the community can use that can benefit the businesses on Corey Avenue. Um these are lasting, you know,

impacts. This is something that will carry on for the duration of the project, whether it's 30, 40, 50 years, however long it's there. Um so those are the the other things that the community has told us very loud and clear. this is what we want. And so I for one appreciate you coming to the table, working with us on this and coming to to a point where we we can find common ground and say here's what we're willing to contribute. So it's it's you putting your money in your wallet and your mouth, you know, where you say it is. So I for one appreciate that. Um, so for all of those reasons and and a few others besides, um, I also want to give a lot of credit to our staff um, for doing all the hard work. Brandon looks like he hasn't slept in about six months.

That's true. [laughter] Probably because he hasn't. That's correct.

Um, again, these are all the things that the community has told us that we have communicated to the staff and I appreciate you bringing a project before the commission. So, these are just some of the reasons why I'm, you know, I would be in favor of this project. It's, you know, I know Commissioner Robinson and others have mentioned other I wish [snorts] there was a perfect project. I wish there was one where we both walk away 100% happy. Um, but I think we're like 95% there for both of us. But I think that's that's excellent. That's better than win-win because it's not 5050. It's, you know, 95 95 is pretty good.

I just want the traffic to be addressed. That that is my ultimate goal that you talk to FDOT, see what you can do on that lane and get get a change done so that it's not everybody coming on. I think there's a viable solution to it, but it just has to be worked out. I'm just know that there's an accident waiting to happen because I've seen it and it's it's a tight it's a tight area to come into and you come off of that bridge pretty quick. And I'm again concerned as I said about the traffic the the traffic going southbound out of out of the property and what it's going to do to the the uh residential neighborhoods around the area because it's all going to be cut through. So I think too with the mangrove change it can force the other and I think everybody forgot to that on Sundays um that we have the market so the blind pass road is closed so now there's only a couple different ways to go there's not four ways to go south so it changes a bit and that's I don't think we're planning on getting rid of those so my my concern is the traffic of everything on this and it has been since it was the project before the same thing. So, I'm just saying the same thing as I said before.

I just had one other question. How many total parking off street on street parking? Was it 53 units? 55 on street parking.

55 on street parking. Okay. Would it be the worst idea to have kind of a right in front of the pavilion and pass a grill where you have five or six dedicated golf cart parking? The reason I ask is because you can fit two in the same parking spot. So where you might have five, it looks like you're giving up five, you're actually gating 10 spots. And if so, if there is a spot somewhere where that makes sense, where there's five, you know, three to five next to each other. Just saying somewhere in general between five to eight And because we do have a lot of people that use golf carts and so that it significantly increases the number of units.

Uh Elise Batzel, for the record, we're happy if you want to convert some of those on street parking spaces along Corey Circle if you at your direction and maybe during site plan approval. Um we'll we can design those at the request of the city manager. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, commissioners. Any further discussion on this item? Is there a motion for first item is start with the ordinance right ordinance 2025-20.

I'd like to make the motion to approve the first reading of ordinance 2520 and resolution 25 2025-23 conditional use permit number 255069. Is there a second? I'll second. We have to do them separate though, right? We do. I thought it was It' be better to do separate if we do first reading and then we'll do if you want to do second reading and then we can do the resolution. Okay. So, uh for correction, I make the motion to approve the first reading of ordinance 2025-20. Second with the with the changes presented with changes as presented here today. Second. City clerk, if you please do a roll call. Commissioner Rzniki.

Yes. Commissioner Maldonado. Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Mayor Petrilla, yes. Motion carries. Final reading. Is there a motion for the final reading of ordinance 2025-20, please? I'll make a motion for uh the final reading of ordinance 20 2025-20. To approve final reading to approve final reading. Yes. Sorry. with the changes presided. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-20 with the changes as amended this evening. As a final reading as on final reading.

A second. City clerk, if you please roll call. Commissioner Commissioner Maldonado. Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott. Yes. Commissioner Robinson. Yes. Commissioner Rzniki. Yes. And Mayor Pat? Yes. The motion carries. Is there a motion on resolution 2025-23? I'll make a motion to approve uh with conditions resolution 2025-23 for conditional use permit 255069. Second. City clerk, if you'll please call RO.

Commissioner Robinson. Oh, well, I didn't change my my voting because we had another ordinance in between. Sorry about that. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner Isniki, yes. Commissioner Maldonado, yes. Mayor Petilla, yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have ordinance 5C, first reading of ordinance 2025-21,

an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, amending the St. B Beach Land Development Code sections 310, 613, 614, and 622 to increase front yard stair encroachments for specified elevated residences and newly constructed single and two family homes, allowing retention of specified non-conforming residential accessory structures following substantial improvement to the primary residence. Modifying residential storage building standards, modifying residential equipment setback standards, and providing a front yard setback line alternative for residential culdeac lots. Providing for severability, cotification, and scriveners errors and providing for an effective date.

Good evening, Brandon Barry planner. So, this is a followup to discussion the city commission had last month. We brought this forward to the planning board sitting as a local planning agency last week to get their feedback which I'll cover in just a moment. We received direction um from both the planning board and the city commission in September ordinance feedback from the planning board in October. Um they did recommend this ordinance with changes which I will cover. This intent includes content intended to dis address all the discussion topics that we had with the city commission at the September meeting. Even if you don't find consensus on some topics, we're simply asking for feedback on the drafted standards. And these amendments address some of the most common issues that we've encountered. Well, um looking at redeveloped and elevated home permits. Uh we've been getting a large number of these since the beginning of the year. I believe we're up to 40 or 50 at this point. And um this is something that prior to uh the storms we were seeing one or one or fewer per year. So this is definitely a learning curve. Um and we're hoping to make some amendments to ease reoccupancy and um and just make logical choices in in permitting these developments. So we received several bits of information from the local planning agency. All but one of them I have included into the modified ordinance. The first is removing the living level height reconstruction limitation for non-conforming reconstructed residences. So these are the residences where instead of being elevated in place, the ground floor is converted to a FEMA compliant either enclosure or open space and then the living level is reconstructed above. When we brought the ordinance forward back at the end of December last year, we were trying to be um limited conservative in in what we changed. So the standard at the time and what is currently adopted in our code is

that whatever the living level height is currently is the limitation of the living level that can be reconstructed. They did um unanimously recommend removing that limitation. They would still be limited to the same number of floors, but if they wanted to increase the height of their living level, one or two feet when they reconstruct, they would not be limited to that, provided that they're still in the same footprint of the house. The second um recommendation that was also included was setting a maximum 7 foot projection for front stairs when set closer than 17 ft to the front property line. That's basically not just looking at the setback standard. We're also looking at the maximum projection standard. So a property owner who has a compliant home that is being elevated in place, they would not be permitted an additional 10 ft of stair encroachment. they would be limited to um up to seven feet from the front of the the residence within the required front setback. There was a recommendation made from a board member that we allow non-conforming balconies in the same footprint when a residence is elevated. So, when you have a two-story home that's elevated in place, you'll want to walk out for that what was originally the ground level living within the same footprint as the balcony above. The recommendation was that we allow for that even if it is within a required setback. We provided some clarification on a currently adopted standard. It's been our code for about 20 years on what is it the actual prohibition on mechanical equipment within a residential storage building. Is that shop equipment? Um staff's interpretation is that refers to AC condensers in window units, things like that. So, we made that clarification and at the last meeting, the city commission directed us to look at permissions for oddshaped lots. Um, that's something we're going to look at in more detail in the future. Um, we have several neighborhoods where we have very unusual properties where we frequently see

variances, not necessarily based on buildability, but just based on a current code that requires the front property line to be managed as a setback. and the vast majority of the frontage is is front property line. Um but what we felt could be addressed in a one-mon turnaround is curved street uh permissions um those on culdeacs and and now on the turning circle of a street and um I'll I'll cover that in a moment. The one change that the planning board recommended sitting as a local planning agency that we did not include in these amendments, they had recommended not extending stair setback encroachment permissions to newly constructed residences. That was something that the city commission had requested that we looked into. I did not eliminate that from the draft that was brought forward, but it was a recommendation that they had made.

Sorry, Brandon, if you go back, there's there's a lot of double negatives in that sentence. Sorry. [laughter] So, what does that mean? So homes that are elevated in place or where they are reconstructed in the same footprint with the ground level converted would be allowed additional encroachment for stairs particularly if they are either at the setback line or within the required setback. Their recommendation was that newly constructed homes so where they're not converting or elevating they have to comply with the current 17t standard not extending that additional encroachment to those homes that are newly constructed. So in this scenario now, how much are they allowed or how close?

Currently, they are allowed to encroach with open stairs to for for most most residences 17 ft from the front property line. That would not change for a newly developed residence. For those homes that are elevated in place or converted and reconstructed, they would be allowed a 10-ft encroachment. So up to a 10-ft setback. So it' be a seven foot additional permission for those homes that are converted. So the stairs would have to be no less than 10 feet from the curb. Correct. For all properties except those in Passeril. We have lesser setbacks in Pastor Grill. So that would be 5T 5T. And then we're going to look separately at the ones that have oddshaped lots and culde-sacs and what?

Correct. We'll address that moving forward. We're only looking at culde-sacs in this ordinance. That's what we could address in the turnaround time, but I I'll go into the the modification of that standard. So this is looking at our vested rights and non-conformities section looking specifically at stair encroachments. This would allow front yard stair encroachment by right for homes with non-conforming front step setbacks that are elevated in place. That would be either reconstruction or elevation above the ground for the living level. This is currently left to staff discretion. That was intentional back in the December ordinance amendment. Um it has caused some issues. So we're asking for just clearer guidance in the code. The stairs must be unroofed except by extension of the primary home's eaves. So they could not be independently roofed. Uh they could not have ground supports over the stairs. They would need to be unroofed except by extension of the eaves. It would also need to have an open base. That would be 80% transparency between treads, the landing and the footing for the stairs. That is the um standard that we usually use elsewhere in the code for transparency. They would need to be at least 80% open. And you can see in the graph uh well the images, these are homes in St. Pete Beach. They're not necessarily encroaching into the setback, but you see the type of openness that we would be looking for um with those stairs. Stairs for non-conforming homes, as we just discussed, they could encroach to 10 feet from the front property line. That's for all districts, 5T from the front property line for residences in Pastor Gril. For those homes that are, and this typically comes up with elevation of homes on culde-sacs or homes built prior to implementation of zoning, which would have been in the late 1950s, they would also be able to extend no closer than the front wall of the residence. We have had quite a few structures that were elevated in place where the entrance to the home is set back from the front facade. So, these would be stairs that extend off a side entry. They would be still used as the primary access to the living level. They could extend out potentially further

than 10 feet from the front property line. They could potentially encroach closer, but they could not go any closer than the front wall of the residence that's elevated in place. And I have an example, I believe. I'm trying to visualize that one. [laughter] So, this is one that is currently going through permitting. Um they the stairs are at 10t 9 in. The home is being elevated in place. It is on a culde-sac. Um it was developed and is being maintained at 8.3 ft. So, these stairs are encroaching no closer than the front um set back of the property. In this case, the stairs are not any closer than 10 feet, but if if they were to be at 8 ft uh 8.3 ft, they would be okay.

And I I'd already shown these graphics, but this was how that would play out. Again, just like I showed in the previous slide, these stairs would be within the required front setback, but they would encroach no closer than the front wall of the home. That would be permitted based on these amendments. And then for those stairs where the front entrance is also on the front of the home, even if it is within the required setback, they would be permitted that additional encroachment, no greater than a 7 foot encroachment off the front of the home. Also, no lesser than a 10-ft setback from the front property line. That would be everywhere except in pass. Passil would have the limitation of five feet from the front property line. So, looking still at the vested rights and non-conformity section. Looking at accessory structure retention, the planning board did agree that allowing for non-conforming deck covers, gazeos, and pools to remain in required yards should be permitted when the home is being substantially improved, but not adding more than 10% in living areas. That would directly be a direct elevation or that would be a conversion and reconstruction. That would exclude finishing of the garage and carport. So, effectively, when that space is elevated, it's finished off. Um, but other than that, they would be adding no more than 10% in living area. So, someone who's adding another entire story to their structure, they would need to comply based on what is drafted. There are cases where the accessory structure is not being substantially improved. Surprising, but also a welcome um change that we've seen is that a lot of these permits are for homes that have not been substantially damaged. Many were not even flood damaged. They're just preparing for a potential future event. They want to get their homes elevated. And uh we do have quite a few where of course the pool was typically not substantially damaged, but even the gazeos and the deck covers are in good standing. They're not being replaced. Uh they're just looking to preserve them where they are in the same footprint, same elevation. So they would not be substantially improved. They would be

eligible to be maintained.

So in in a scenario where somebody has a house with a pool, they decide to demo the house. So, I' I've seen probably three or four of those in the last two weeks and somebody wanted to demo their house and in the few cases I saw they were denied the building permit for the new house because the pool where it's currently is it might be 3 ft from the seaw wall whereas today's code doesn't allow for that. Correct. that that would extend to those properties as long as the pool is in place. When they come back in for a new permit to replace the pool in the future, they would need to comply with the setbacks. But just building a new home or elevating it or converting would not require the pool to either be removed or pursue a pursuit.

So, this will address those scenarios where they can keep the pool where it is and then build a new house. Correct. Yes. Okay. This does not allow for non-conforming accessory structures to be substantially improved or replaced without setback compliance. So for the structures that were destroyed that are being replaced, they would still need to move forward for variance or they would need to comply with the current adopted setbacks. No, I haven't seen one. But what you in this scenario, so if the pool popped out of the ground and it was completely damaged, they would have to build it in the current setbacks.

Correct. So we had um for example, one that went to the board of adjustment a few months ago. They had a debt cover. Um they were looking to replace it, but it was within the required setback. The debt cover had blown down. They would still need to pursue a variance based on what is currently drafted because they are reconstructing it. Yeah.

So looking at residential storage building section 6.13, um there was agreement to increase storage building size from 80 to 120 square feet. As I mentioned before, there was concern about what the definition for mechanical equipment attached to that building entailed. So, we did amend that to just in state that it includes um AC units, generators, and so on. Um and any equipment that could help convert it to living space, which of course is prohibited citywide. The height remains at 88 square ft. Uh it does require all storage buildings to be tied down to meet wind loads following substantial improvement of the residence regardless of size. For those who are elevating, converting and reconstructing or building new when they're keeping that um that shed or residential storage building on their property, they would need to tie it down as if it were a new structure. Um but they would be able to retain it on their property. Looking at ancillary equipment. Um, this cleans up language we've repeatedly added on to this section since 2005 and it's just gotten a bit unwieldy, a little bit difficult to interpret. This would allow for in place elevation of existing equipment for all residences that are substantially improved or required by the Florida Building Code to elevate. Front yard encroachment would be limited to five feet. If they are placing the equipment on a pedestal or column, the setbacks would be a minimum of three feet. Equipment is limited to one foot above the lowest floor design flood elevation. This is probably the biggest challenge that we see with new properties. They do tend to get it right. They do, you know, revise their plans, but there is a significant cost associated with relocating that equipment in some cases. And this would allow for existing equipment that was permitted at grade just to be lifted in place within the required setback. Newly installed equipment must meet all yard setbacks. So if they have an AC condenser, it's being elevated in place, that would be fine. But if they're installing a generator, it would need to

meet the new setbacks. Newly constructed homes equipment must meet all yard setbacks. So if they completely demo and they're rebuilding, they would need to comply with the setback codes. And that's something that runs throughout all of these amendments with the exception of the pools and accessory structures that we just discussed. This was the section that the planning board recommended removing the additional stair encroachment for newly constructed homes. This would apply as drafted only to single and two family residences. It would not be an additional encroachment that is allowed for multifamily or commercial development. This would allow the three-foot encroachment for stairs without independent roof overhangs. That is the same standard that we have today. It applies to all properties. We would allow a 7 foot encroachment into the front yard for stairs without roofs and with an open base. So, because they're constructing new, they are going to comply with the setbacks that are required for the zoning district. So, there was no need to have that minimum 10- foot setback because they're they're all going to be constructing the front wall of the home at least in compliance with the current zoning standards, but it would allow for a 7 foot encroachment. That would allow for a setback of 13 ft for open stairs, open base, unroofed. That was the um standard that the planning board had recommended be removed. And then again looking at yards and measurements for culde-sacs, starting to look at some of the more unusual lots in the city. There are certain lots that are probably appropriate for a variance. So we'll always keep that process in place, but we do have many culde-sacs in our city um especially in some of the uh the newer developed neighborhoods. So this was requested at the uh prior discussion. This would be an option for owner of culde-sac lots to reduce the front yard setback to 15 feet and that

would be measured interior to the lot from the tangent line of the ark. So that' be the furthest point or the closest point interior to the lot of the arc of the front culde-sac line. They would measure back 15 ft. That would effectively allow them to establish a standard front setback from a line rather than from the arc of the culde-sac. in certain neighborhoods that arc is very aggressive and it's very difficult to design a home that really takes full advantage of that front yard. Um so this would allow them to establish that yard 5t less than what they would be allowed at the closest point. They also don't have to contend with the difficulty of the curve of the front of the lot. This would allow typical encroachment stairs and so on into that front yard. So, whatever the um direction to move forward is on the previous standard would apply to them as well. If they use the standard, the front of the home, if it were built at 15 ft, the stairs could be at 12 feet. They're allowed the three-foot encroachment. If we were to extend the 7 foot encroachment, um if that's something the commission gives us direction to move forward on, they it would be an 8ft setback as established from that tangent line. This, as I mentioned before, is more beneficial with for lots with more aggressive arcs. Those are the ones with the smaller culde-sacs um which we have generally in our 1950s 1960s platted neighborhoods. They tend to be a little bit more aggressive. So the comprehensive plan does not directly address accessory structures. It does generally address residential suitability which I think is what we're trying to address here. Uh we want to ensure that the residential character of the city is maintained and protected. We need to promote policies that are designed to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing and the city shall review our ordinances to ensure that there are needs in line with the housing needs of the current uh the current population. So, we do ask for your direction tonight. Um either a motion to approve approve with modification or deny the

first reading. If there is content in here that you feel needs to be addressed, we're happy to take those changes back and bring it back either at the next meeting or in December. Um, as I mentioned before, this is probably the biggest zoning issue we're facing now, especially with equipment elevation and with stairs. Um, so we do hope that action is taken on those in a in a subsequent meeting. Happy to take any questions. I have a question.

Ask a couple. Um just so I could understand why why the differences between pass and every other property in St. Pete Beach because we are St. Pete Beach not just pass a grill. Why is it determined that that setback um if you go back to that slide I think you it the difference was five and 10. I forgot the numbers right now off the top of my head. So many numbers in my head. There you go. 10. Okay. Well, but that's my question. Like how is it determined? Is it because of the lot size? And if so, why isn't every other property in the city under the same setback?

So, there are certain encroachments allowed and that was part of our pass overlay district amendments back in 2017. Um, there was a survey of several streets. I can't say every single one, but we have a provision in our code. It's not used very frequently anymore because of the redevelopment we've gone through, but property owners can build a new structure at the average established block phase. I've only seen it once since I've been here, but that was the survey that was done at the time. And because of the age of pass, because of the um many of the historic homes we have there, they're set at 5 10 feet from the front property line. So, a 10 to 15 foot setback is what was established for new residences. Now I should say the face of the home cannot be the only thing occupying that 10-ft setback. There is a portion of stoop requirement that applies specifically to new development in passil. So the stairs could extend out but it may not be that necessarily the face of the building but that's how that came to be. The setbacks and the height is a little bit less in in that neighborhood to to compensate. So there's potentially other properties that are similar though, right? In in the city if you think I mean we're about to make the Donsar Belle Vista historic district. We're about to we're considering surveying now uh the Corey area where there's homes. I mean overall we have the same ages of homes throughout the city. Um, have we ever looked at that to see? I mean, why, you know, because maybe some of the homes, most of the homes that we're trying to save, right, are are probably the older homes.

Um, I don't see why we wouldn't follow the same suit. And I know many of the historic homes in the Donses neighborhood are built with lesser setbacks than would be required today. We want to incentivize preservation when we can. And for those that choose to elevate or choose to convert and reconstruct, they have the option to keep that setback in most cases. I absolutely would support looking at a similar overlay for the other historic neighborhoods. I think that's that's appropriate as we move forward on that. Thank you. Yeah, I think when you look at the average lot size in Paso Grill, they're far they're about a tenth, right? like that is what you're looking at.

They're No, no, they're they're a tenth of an acre on average. So 0.1 versus most of the other ones in the city are 1.5 to 1.8 1.2 sometimes in lot size. So they're How about in district one, right? Because isn't it short also? You've got some I do too. The difference is in passive girl they don't have a driveway because the lots are so short, you know, it's sidewalk fence, front like 10 ft of front lot and front door. But then they have the alley.

Well, the and then the house sits on zero lot on the alley. So the they have almost no set but there's other issues that come up because they have no setbacks. There's no front lawns. There's no garages, you know. So they they have But I mean that's something that we can look at if we need to at other neighborhoods. I think initially right now we're just trying to fix the biggest chunk of the problem and then if we find other neighborhoods like district one probably has a few of those as well here and there especially on the east side. Yeah. Um district two would have some as well. Yeah. Yeah. All the ones along Bay Street. Wow. Yeah. Bay Street around um on um Gulf Winds too.

Yeah. on some of the side streets maybe like at some point maybe we might look at some an ordinance related to the depth of the lot right so if the lots only instead of being you know some lots are 100 feet like some of the ones in in Boca are 120 feet deep it's a nice lot you know but then other ones in pass girl are you know 60 75 feet deep and then once you take you know 15 feet of setbacks front and back you get you know corner lots too you got It's, you know, we've got that too.

And you mentioned over like to do an an overlay similar like to pass a grill, but now these are not historic districts yet. Yet many homes throughout the city right now. I mean, I know a lot of Dons Cesar did um make locally designated properties and and I think I'm starting to hear more in district 2. I think a couple um and one even I think I heard in the historic preservation board. Um, could there be an overlay for just like for that type, right? Because we don't have a historic district. That does an overlay have to be a district already or could it be done? No, no, it's locally designated.

We could always move forward with an overlay. Um, that's always an option. It's typically optin just as Pastor Grill is currently optin. The historic district route is one of the few ways to require compliance when cities want to go that route. But an opt-in overlay is always an option. It's it's just an additional permission that you know respects the character of an area that may not be prevalent throughout the city. So, and another one on the I think you said the single family um or two family, not multif family. Are we is that um triplex duplex? Is that what that is?

Correct. Anything greater than than two family? Um and that would be specifically for new construction. So that would be a limitation for we we have different multifamily zoning. Um that would be typically above the core residential neighborhoods of the city. We have for example multifamily um along Gulf Boulevard in certain areas. So So this would allow let's say like a duplex to elevate if they wanted to. So,

I know it takes two parties in some cases to do it, but I'm just thinking like the Donsar itself, you know, we have they're called triplex, but they're separate, right? They're actually duplex and then and a separate unit behind um I think two of them already have been made historic or at least one for sure locally designated and I know those owners are working in conjunction with each other, but if they wanted to lift their home, would they be able to? So yes, if if they're on the local historic registry, they have that option. One of the items that we're bringing to you next month, sorry, next week is going to be um starting to look at the west end of of Corey, uh the TC2 district and the feedback we heard from the community. And that's one of the items we want to discuss with you as a potential conceptual plan to move forward. Um it's it's challenging for single family neighborhoods that have two or more family structures in them because they're considered non-conforming uses and they're very limited in what they can do. The historic registry has a way around that to an extent. Um it does still limit additions that are not just getting the home out of the flood plane, but I know of at least one property well to two property owners in the Donses neighborhood who are looking to take advantage of that. They have homes on the historic registry and they're looking to elevate. So,

thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

Oh, I got I had a few questions because I was going through I didn't understand um let's see if I can get you to the right page. Um 378 of6004 [clears throat] and it's with the non-conforming structure being moved either vertically or horizontally. It will comply with the following. um if it's moved such that the lowest um habitable floor is elevated to or above the required um base flood elevation plus freeboard established blah blah blah. Okay. Additionally, the existing habitable floor ground floor of the structure beneath the required base flood elevation plus freeboard may be converted to parking storage and building access if in compliance with the structures flood zone. Um, where I got confused here is this in the same footprint and same and this is what got me or fewer number of floors. So, they can't build a second story on top. I know that they could and we talked about that, but they would have to be it would be, you know, wedding caked or whatever. Right.

Correct. And and that that should be clarified. Um that that is exactly what the intent was that they I thought so they they can wedding and cake it in to meet the setbacks but they could build the one level

third floor or whatever it is. I mean if you call ground floor ground ground floor one. Okay. So that I had that question and then um C I think I had one. Let me read this real quick. Um see if your propations Oh, I don't think I had one on that. I just flagging that. But look at that. Let's see. Um, we have the landing in at the six feet, which was good. And then the seven feet in. I'm just going through page by page because I made some notes. Um, and I flag the same thing, the five feet versus the other. I'm like, that's not really fair. It's like

want to be over. Yeah. Um and then there was another one. Oh. Um page 381 B. No structure in which a non-conforming use is located shall be I get the enlarged

altered improved is where I'm getting at. I'm like is improved really supposed to be in there? I mean altered or reallocated to occupy other portions of the lot upon which is this to increase this because just because with everything that we're doing with substantially improved and improved I'm just curious of whether that needed clarification. it it probably should be. Um, this is something we want to address with you next week as part and this is potentially tangential to or possibly part of the basis for what we're going to be looking at with the town center district on the west side.

But, um, improved is confusing and we we run into the same issue. It's it's difficult to to interpret what that means. Um, you know, there's a lot that could fall under improvement. So, um, and then item D3, I think it needs there. I think an extra word got struck through. Um, except that the structure height may be increased. Yes. By that by needs to stay in there. Thank you.

And let's see. N um 382E Um non-conforming accessory accessory structures. No non-conforming accessory structure shall continue after the principal use or structure is terminated by abandonment. Then we have damage in there again or destruction. I mean damage or destru destructions mean it's totally gone. Damage can mean little. So, are we talking substantially damaged or we talking destroyed? Because we got destroyed under here under destruction.

Understood. We we'll clarify the the intent of our amendments are to allow those that the specified accessory structures to remain even when the home is redeveloped. But the accessory structure being destroyed would require compliance and repair. I I get that. I just it's gets kind of confusing on that. clarify because I I I have an accessory. So, I'm looking at it too from from that viewpoint because I I didn't

I mean, I did separate um repairs on that one versus my home and then if I was going to elevate, I probably wouldn't elevate Max the structure at all. Um I think Okay, one probably last one. um 385. When we get to the equipment, um it was new or replaced equipment. Um it says at the end it says no more than 2 feet above grade. Is that correct?

That's equipment that is allowed to be installed at grade such as pool pumps. Those can be installed below the flood plane. they would be allowed to encroach into required yards on new homes and that is currently the standard. Um it's the elevated equipment that is not allowed to encroach into the required yard.

Well, it says when this per uh permission is utilized, the equipment shall be elevated no more than 2 feet above grade. So that's what got me. Couldn't you if you wanted to put it at three feet if it's a new equipment, couldn't you put it higher? They they could and we we could always modify this standard, but the current standard is that if the equipment is in within within a required yard and if it's newly installed, it can be no more than 2 feet above grade. The only equipment that can typically be installed at that height is pool pool pumps and pool equipment. Okay?

But um if the commission would like, if you'd like to allow for the equipment to go higher, we could look at modifying that. It was just about preserving what we currently have. And I I could probably make that a little bit clearer. I guess that kind of is what equipment we're talking about, you know, because I would have thought about think moving my pool equipment up higher. I don't know if it would work the same. Yeah. I think I asked that when my pool equipment was destroyed. Quick connect to necks are um what was recommended. Oh [laughter] yeah. and and and waterproof the ends. You can take your pool pump out if something's coming. Pretty much

the clerk, do we have any audience comments? I do have a question. I don't know. I didn't know if she if your life was long enough. Yeah. Um just to clarify again for the balcony I I want to make sure I'm in the same page because when I was um watching the meeting I was a little confused when some people were speaking not this meeting but for when this was being drafted by the planning board. We're talking about if you have a balcony I'm talking about balconies. If your balcony exists right now at the second level that you're going to move it now to the third level not add another one now at the second level. Correct.

The the recommendation from the board was to allow for a in in your example a balcony to be added at the second level in the same footprint as the balcony that's being raised. So have two balconies. Correct. In the same footprint. So if the balcony were at a 10-ft setback in the rear where 17 ft is currently required, they could elevate. they could keep that balcony and then the ground floor living level that is now level one would be allowed a balcony in the same footprint as the one that is existing and and remains. So this is only if it exists not correct post. Okay.

All right. I know there was a lot about you know the depths and everything and whether you do a porch and all this kind of stuff but now I get it. Um on page um 382 E1C it talks about 10% um no more than 10% of living space added. Um and I'm just thinking like double garage because typically what you're you're converting is your garage right to a now a living space. um on a small home, the garage some some homes I think I saw this happen even at one of the board of adjustment meetings a long time ago that it was a big garage like it was a double garage um so they wouldn't be able to there would be more than 10% right could it be possible

well as as drafted and if this needs to be clarified if the commission's in agreement with it I I'm happy to do so but they would be allowed to finish out that garage that is either elevated or if they reconstruct within the footprint, the space that is the garage beneath can be finished out, they could add an additional 10% living area onto that. So, it's not including that enclosing that garage. Correct. That's the intent. Yes.

Okay. All right. And then the other one was on page 382 FC. This is about the one year, you know, from the time of um the disaster, right, which we we are way past, right? Um there's people who might have permits, but there's a lot of people who are still on a standstill. So, how is that being addressed or um

we've we've heard from several property owners and at some point we're going to need to come back to the commission to make a determination. No one is moving forward on that permission yet, and that's the ability to rebuild with greater number of units than allowed by the base zoning. Um, they're allowed to keep what they have if they redevelop within a year. We can get an extension of that, but we just need a declaration for that. Um, we can look at increasing it. Um, no one has actually formally submitted yet, but if that's something the commission's amendable to, if you want to draw it out a few additional years, that's modify that.

I mean, the state has something, right? Like when there's a landfall into 2020, you know, god knows what, but we don't have it for the residents, you know. Okay, I got one more. Hold my hand through the the [laughter] tangent line again just to make sure I got this right. So that's the front of the house and you draw the line. Gotcha. In this 15t minimum front set back. So you can go three feet into it or seven feet into it. Well, it's asking us to determine which one we can do.

We're asking currently the standard is a 3-ft encroachment. So the stairs could end at 12 feet from that tangent line that's established. the if we move forward with extending that permission to new single family development um they would be allowed an eight foot setback from that tangent line with open stairs because currently the setback is 20 ft from the front property line at every point along the curve. Correct. Correct. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Any audience comments? There are no audience comments. Okay. All right, Commissioner.

That's okay. Brandon, thank you very much for doing this. I know that's a lot of work. And uh um I I think all this is really great. I think it's super helpful. I think it's the direction we need to go. Um I personally am also in favor of of extending that um increase of stairs into the setback for new construction. Um, you know, there's it's very easy on the one hand to say, well, if you're designing a house from scratch, you make it fit the setbacks, but when you're designing a house from scratch, you're also still dealing with the lot size that you had and, you know, trying trying to fit the house fit the house into the lot. And a and a house on the ground, you know, our setbacks were were were developed when all the houses were on the ground. and a house on the ground. You can walk out your front door onto a patio um or a or a front porch or a back porch or straight into your backyard where um where the setbacks aren't as critical, you know, because you're just walking out into your yard versus when you have an elevated house and you're trying to fit in a porch so that you can walk out your front door, your back door, and and you know, have a spot that you can hang out and then also to fit stairs into that. Um it's it's tricky. It's a it's a it's a difficult thing and I think we have a lot of residents who are facing that and it doesn't take a huge amount of of space into the setback to solve those problems. Um and so I think just just as you have it written here with the um you know with the increase of the stairs into the setback I think that uh you know making that available to people who are building new houses as well helps a lot because you know what is the what is the purpose of a front setback? Well, it's, you know, so that you don't have a house too close to the street and so you don't have have a house that's too close to the to the easement where there might be utilities and those sorts of things. And that all makes sense, but when all

you have extending into that setback is stairs, it's not like you're you're not really affecting your neighbors. You're not, you know, you're not really changing anything except for um, you know, having a way to get into your house from the front yard. [laughter] And so uh um so so I would be I would be in favor of of extending that encroachment for new construction as well. I I agree I agree with you. I think [clears throat] it opens up better architectural um designs like and we're not going to get stuck with just boxes. Yeah.

Um I think you can do a box um without putting your stairs out, but I'd like to not see a bunch of boxes. I'd like to see some character and um um I really like that. And the thing is maybe it's something that if it is new construction to go into that you have to have open stairs because I think open stairs add a add a bit of u um openness.

Yeah. Yeah. Just absolutely as as written you know with the with the open stairs. Yeah. So, I'll just bring this up as something that is often brought up by District 4 residents. Um, well, I agree with both of you in principle. I would make a distinction between, you know, in this situation where people are tearing down homes and building new and most of the ones that we've seen, they're not really increasing the square footage by a lot,

right? So they're, you know, they have 2500 square feet. I'd like to have 2500 square feet. That's out of the flood plane, right? That's that's really it. What seems to be happening in passive grill though is they're they're they would use this scenario as somebody who just bought a house to tear it down for no really no other reason, just because they want to rebuild something new. And now we're pushing it out all the way to the corners. And now you end up with 6,000 square feet, which again, personally, you build whatever house you want, you have to live in it. It's fine. Your neighbors got to look at it though.

And one of the things that we hear quite frequently, again, Hassa Grillil overwhelmingly vina Delmare a lot is that we're getting these, you know, really, you know, zero lot line homes, even on large lots that are just pushed out to every corner, maxed out on height. Um, so we're not so there's there's a difference in why you're doing you. I'm not sure that we can differentiate between that. I'm just those are the concerns from the other side that we've heard from residents over and over again for the last

and in district three, may I add? I mean, take a drive down West Maritana. I mean that we've had the smaller quaint homes, historic homes, and exactly what the mayor just said, properties just bought up and they are filling every inch possible. And I get the call, what can we do? Now I've got, you know, four balconies or three balconies staring right at me while I'm at the pool and there's nothing they can do. Yeah. you know, and it's and it's literally just open up your window and pass, you know, the sugar for my coffee because it's literally right there.

Yeah. Well, and I mean I would I you know in a in a in a perfect world I would be I would be saying we should be looking at at side setbacks for multi-story houses because a 10% of lot width for a for an for a house on the ground is pretty reasonable, but a 10% lot width for a side setback for a house that's,

you know, where the living area living level starts at 12 or 15 feet off the ground is a is a whole different story, right? It's a you know, it's a completely different look and feel for the neighborhood. And so, you know, my originally when I was thinking about this, I was I was thinking, you know, it's it's it's probably more complicated than you guys want to administer. [laughter] But, you know, my my original thought was, you know, I don't know, for every for every two feet you give up on a side setback, you get an additional foot encroachment for your stairs into the front setback.

You know, um but uh but but you know, I don't know how much of that gets to be more complicated than than you know, want people want to administer than is practical.

Well, I I hear you and I just want to clarify that we're talking about ease of reoccupancy versus new builds for this portion. So, I think that that would be a more detailed uh discussion, but uh I do agree with the things that Brandon's brought forward, the staff is proposing for this scenario. So, I just don't want to confuse the two. And I and I appreciate the mayor's comments. Uh part of this is also that we have to recognize that there is a historical character that is impacted by this. So

I think the the planning board said it best. We don't want, you know, unintentional consequences. Um so I mean it's not that I'm in disagreement with doing it, but but there could be consequences. Is there a motion? Like to make make the motion to approve with modifications as discussed for the first reading of ordinance 2025-21.

I second. City clerk, if you please do a roll call. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. Commissioner Maldonado, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Mayor Petrilla, yes. Motion carries. Thank you.

Uh, next we have a few items for discussion. Commissioner Robinson, you had board members and something my handwriting. I can't read about traffic. Sorry. Okay, hang on. Let me get my notes here. Um, got them all over the place. Um, board member appointments, I think. Yeah.

Um, yeah, I just wanted to bring up board member appointments. I I know that um there's not a lot of specifics in um in the charter on us uh you know looking at people within our own district um or or the like. And I know a lot of us I I just am a little concerned too that it could get overwhelmingly um heavy um on a board to have a bunch of people from the same district. But I think my my bigger thing is basically um I was concerned with uh I got a call that um your appointment for replacement and for uh the planning board and um I'd like to ask you to reconsider your selection. And the reason I asked that is because I know that during the appointment process um you know you you made a a very uh firm stance on you know whether that be a moral or ethic compass to not back a particular candidate because of his social said social media postings and the person that um you know you have appointed and hence I'm asking you to reconsider is that they've displayed questionable judgment and that's a very important board. We've got a uniform um um in their advertisement prominently displayed that was against DoD directive. We've got accepting contributions from foreign nationals that's documented. Um ads with no disclaimers. We've got um you know divisiveness and uh you know um slanderous postings and it's all the stuff you said you wouldn't back Mike Greger for. And this is a

person that has now for some reason those same um moral obligations for not picking or or appointing Mike Greger. you've decided to appoint somebody who is doing has done things that are are much greater than anything I can imagine um Colonel Mike Greger's ever done on social media. So I'm respectfully asking you to reconsider your selection. I'll take it under consideration.

I will second that request and add to that. Uh, so in addition to both state and federal election law violations, and we're not talking distant past, but we're talking couple months ago, right? And I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, so please don't read into that at all. That's it's it's simply this individual has shown questionable judgment uh on multiple fronts. Um, and not only that, but he was overwhelmingly rejected by the residents of district two. And you know, I somebody who lives in district 2 might look at it and say, "We did not want this person representing us." And yet somehow this person has been maneuvered into a position where he's representing us, even though none of us actually wanted him. And somebody might look at that and say, you know, maybe this the commissioner that appointed him and maybe you weren't aware of all of his issues, right? So I I have no idea. Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. Um there's plenty out there about all the things that he's uh he's done. But somebody could look at and say, "Well, if the commissioner did know about it and they did appoint this person, they may have it may be perceived as, you know, even though our residents, nobody wanted him, now he's put in here by somebody who either doesn't know or doesn't care." And and I hope it's the I don't know part. Um, and so again, I would also second um, uh, I need to probably have a chat with the city attorney about grounds for removing somebody because somebody who has DoD and federal election law violations, you know, I'm not sure that they should be serving on any board.

So, it is it's our responsibility to pick the most the most qualified individuals um you know that that represent the city and that that put us in a good light. I'm not sure that this individual does that.

So, I'd like to refocus Commissioner Robinson's uh premise about board member appointments. So, I think that there's significant things that we can do without without naming any one individual to strengthen what it is that the community would expect from the commissioners as it pertains to appointing people. Right now, there are no qualifications just as there aren't for commissioners. There is no transparency. So, I would like to see more transparency when commissioners are looking to nominate people or to consider candidates. And then I would also like to get more community input. And I will tell you this though that one of my strongest uh representatives is not from my district. He is very involved with the uh parks and recreation and he tried to work under the commissioner at the time but there was just no availability. So that person stepped forward. I commend him as I do any resident who wants to serve and we do have a lot of crosspalization but I do I do think that it's going to be difficult to align those uh within the districts and I will say that I have not seen any favoritism you know from that person that person is passionate uh he goes around he he does his work and he represents all the districts equally so I'm not concerned about that as much as I am as I am about the transparency and I would like to see something more codified with that?

No, 100%. I don't I think the reason why any commissioner can appoint from any district u because more often than not we have a we have a tough time filling the positions, right? We don't have enough people. Um so I'm not suggesting that the commissioner has to pick somebody from district one. The charter says we can pick from wherever you want. Pick from whatever we want. Um I don't I don't really know that we need to look at changing that. We can I personally don't don't think that's an issue. I mean I have appointments I think from all four districts because really for me the criteria was who's the most qualified person to be there and I have board members who served in the last three or four administration including my predecessor but to me that person was the most qualified and that they should stay there let them serve in that capacity and ultimately at the end of the day that you know and the way we look at you know how how do we say somebody's qualified you know we look at their experience we look at here, you know, what have they done, how have they contributed to community, what what do they bring to the table, do they have, you know, sound judgment and moral character, you know, a lot of things go into it. I don't think we need to limit it to one district. I think that's might be challenging.

Commissioner, you have a second item?

Yes, I do. Um, I brought up um because I've said this repeatedly and I've been saying it for probably two years now. Um, about using Beachtown metrics and traffic studies. Um, we are not requiring that of our traffic experts nor of our applicants. And I think that needs to be a requirement so that it's indicative of our city. weren't using the correct weekdays, I mean, excuse me, weekends as the peak as the peak days and we're using the correct hours um because we're not nobody's presenting that to us and it's not representative of our community. And to me, that's best practices to be representative of your community. So, I'm asking for um the commission to uh consider us going ahead and putting that into um a best practices for our city.

It would need to be a code change. Correct. Because the traffic analysis is codif codified my requirement for right now. The the code says that you would adopt a policy. Okay. So you could adopt a policy, but it takes some work. So we'd have to bring something back to you.

Okay. Just so you understand level of effort. So the city historically has used Panelis forward as the adopted best practice because they have completed the necessary study to be defensible. So that's how we historically got to where we're at right now. So if we want to take on our own methodology which is done through a policy adopted by the commission we would need to do a study. So there would we we think we should bring back the cost of that back to you because we don't have a traffic engineer on staff. So that would be something we would send out and would need a budget amendment and some prioritization from you if that's what we want to adopt going forward. I I agree with Commissioner Robinson in principle. I think in in practice, the traffic person that was here earlier today at a previous meeting, I had a conversation with her and I asked her how many times she's ever disagreed with a developer and found the road deficient. She said it happened. I was like once, twice. It was not a it was not a large number, right? It's we can give them whatever parameters they want and and you saw this tonight. They just came back with different numbers like well it fits. So I think we could go through the time and effort to come up with different parameters and say well on the weekend it's this and so on and we have different traffic patterns and everybody else. At the end of the day the person they're going to hire there's they're going to come back with positive results. If they don't they won't have a job very long. I mean they're not hiring traffic. Look that's just the reality of what it is. They're not hiring traffic engineers who don't tell them

who don't give them the numbers that make sense based on whatever numbers we're asking for. That's just so I think we could spend a lot of time and energy. And then really the other question I have is how many more large developments that require traffic studies do we even have potential for? Well, we now have what? 170 units in the density pool. Well, that's a different conversation. We can talk about the density pool, too. Yeah.

I mean, we've got couple down south, couple up north, maybe five. We can come back with a number. I just don't know that if we spend a h 100red grand and then when a lawsuit happens we're the ones that have to defend it versus right now we can just point back and for penelis and be like well that's their numbers. Yeah. Well I'm happy to go and talk to Ford penelis and find out if they have any metrics or anything for a tourist tourist destination.

I I would just add that this is this footprint is going to be impacted and change significantly with the new proposal for 900 units down the road from us. So, it's probably going to take uh an assessment with updated information based on that development as well, but not at this time.

100% agree in principle. I just don't know that that's feasible. Well, I'm willing to do the leg work and find out what I can find out. Okay. Yeah. Let's talk forth. [snorts] Commissioner Maldonado, bonfire.

Thank you. Yeah. So, I just wanted to uh bring this before the commission uh that uh every year Pastor Grill has a bonfire event in December and I just want to try to get this onto the city sponsored event category. Uh nothing will change in terms of city support. The city has traditionally provided fire support. They've dug the uh hole for the fire pit. They've removed the uh debris and uh the Passville Community Activities has always provided the wood for that fire. It's a tradition. I just want to clarify that it's not a District 4 only event. Uh much like our events over here at Toron Park, it's open to St. Pete Beach. And I would like to add that to the calendar of events moving forward. Sounds great.

Yep. That's a great event. It is a citywide event. That's a great idea. It's like half the county shows up for it. Yeah. Yeah. So that city manager, anything on that? Just for clarity, we'll just bring back a consent amendment because you do adopt annual events every year and we're trying to be processoriented so everyone understands what we're doing. So we'll I'll bring that back into when is the bonfire? Well, December. So, it' have to be pretty quick. We'll turn it around as quick as we can.

Yeah. And again, kudos to the city manager for coming in and ensuring that that transparency is there and that it's clarified that it's open to the entirety of St. Pete Beach. So, and our neighbors. Thank you. Okay. Sticking with district four. Well, in really every district. Um, so we've had a few of the residents from district uh three and four um primarily four request that we look at at our um telecom communications

permits

um but particularly as it relates to 5G. And so they have um so they've worked with the community. Um there seems to be support for the city looking at it. So I I think what we're trying to do is right so we have a group of residents that's very passionate about this and very concerned about uh the cell towers. Um they've gathered consensus from other residents and neighbors and they've asked the commission to look at it as well. Um we had a presentation from them and an attorney that they hired to help draft some um you know some some sample ordinance. Um, and so want to ask the city attorney just to give us a quick summary of that if possible and then just to see if the commissioners would like to pursue this further. Yep. It would be a proposal to amend the current small cell tower wireless communications ordinance to put as many criteria changes as to bring it up to date with two federal laws and two state laws. and uh we can take a look at that um in conjunction with the Senate Bill 180 uh preeemption to make sure we don't cross any lines there and bring something back to you if that's what the commission would like.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm highly supportive of this. Uh this is something that I've been working behind the scenes in conjunction with uh Kylie Lee from your district.

Uh they've been very open and transparent. There's been GoFundMe accounts. Uh these residents have taken it upon themselves to advocate uh for changes that not only benefit our health uh our properties, our natural life u and things like that. And it really just started with conversations with the city, you know, the city having uh been given notice and then making some adjustments wherever possible to ensure that these 5G towers are placed u where they're not going to be a disturbance to people and properties and things like that. So I just wanted to commend uh you know both Lauren and Cali for the efforts that they've done and the transparency that they've shown with this as well. So this is something that's been going on for months. uh it's something that they're passionate about and it's something that they've really just taken the lead on to ensure that we're not in violations of any, you know, state, federal, or local laws. So, I applaud them for that. So, thank you, sir.

I definitely support um the movement as well. I mean, um the uh anything that we can do to protect residents um you know, that's pretty much our job up here. So, um I'm for it. I'm I'm 100% I mean I've been talking to Lauren from prior to Commissioner um Maldonado coming in. Um it's a it's a grassroots effort. They're they're not just looking for change at a local level. Um they are going to go to the state um hopefully by uh the next um session. Um so it's it's a big thing for overall for for the state and possibly nationally as well. All right.

Okay. With the consensus, we'll begin preparation. Great. Okay. And then the other item um that I had was the city attorney. Would you the board of adjustment? Yes. would you just quickly give us um so if somebody wanted to appeal the board of adjustment decision how would they go about doing so?

Um currently under 3.14 appeals because a board of adjustment is an appointed board it says any person agree by a final order of the city commission or any appointed board may appeal the order to the circuit court. This appeal shall be filed with the circuit court honor before 30 days following the issuance of the final development order. Um similar to what we discussed earlier, um the existing code reflects a delegation of certain matters um from the city commission to the board of adjustment to have final say on things like um undue hardship variances and practical hardship variances. Um and from there it would go to circuit court if it was appealed. So, if you wanted to keep those uh within the city, you could have an appeal to the city commission before you go to court. Um I'll have to take a look at Senate Bill 180 um to see and make sure we don't cross any lines there. Um but that's a potential uh route. Um some cities allow city commission to elevate a decision um by certain appointed boards. For example, Fort Lauderdale, if a planning commission approves something as a final, um, if the city commission wants to hear it, uh, a city commissioner can make a motion, get a second and have a vote to elevate it to the city commission for review. That would have to be written into our code if we wanted to do something like that. So, and then typically if you were going to have an administrative appeal of a board of adjustment, it would either be the applicant or an adversely affected person, someone who lives closer than someone on the other side of town. So, that they're specially in um impacted by the variance, which could be uh shown. Um, you could ask in the ordinance that

they submit a request for adversely affected party status at the board of adjustment, giving them some more time. You could also have a couple options. If you do decide to come here, you could limit it to the record as as the circuit court proceedings are where whoever appeals would have to have a transcript, give it to you, and you would just be legal argument and you make a decision. or what many most cities do is have a denovo appeal where they're allowed to do another presentation, represent and answer answer questions um and have a denovo appeal process. So this I'm bringing this up because we've seen in the last um couple of months um a number of residents this is one of the reasons we're having the stairs discussion today and some of the other discussions and the polls and so on um where again I I to me I I make a difference between somebody who's doing things to their house because they want to be more resilient because they were substantially damaged and they have to versus somebody who's was just doing it because, you know, two years ago, it's a different scenario from today. Um, and I I feel that in some ways, you know, for those of you who've been around for a while, you know, it's you remember there was a time where the board of adjustment,

the joke was they would approve everything like they've never seen a denial. And it almost seems like we've swung the other way. And again, this is not a a judgment on any one of the anyone on the boards. I respect your opinions and that's that's fine. I think what we what I'm looking at is in terms of going to the circuit court seems like an extreme next step

and an expensive next step for for somebody. Um actually I like the the phil idea of you know any commissioner can make the motion and then if there's three votes to hear it we can hear it. So you almost that gives the commission some discretion on whether they want to when if they look at an issue and say I think this one has merit and we think that the commit that the board actually made the right decision. So, I just think in some of these cases, we need a little bit more um not sure what the right word is, but maybe just give people more of an opportunity to to rebuild. You could also um it sounds like what you're looking at is any applicant whose uh application is denied by the board of adjustment could ask for a city commission to elevate the denial decision. Um that probably would not run a foul of Senate Bill 180 because it's not not more burdensome more restrictive but actually be uh give them a second chance.

Sure. But just to be sure, if it was approved at the objection of a neighbor, for example, that neighbor will also be able to appeal. That might run into Senate Bill 180, but we could check it. Well, that would be less but that would be less restrictive, not more more if if they don't want the project. From an applicant's perspective, it would probably be more burdensome to have to come here and have it approved again for a second time. But is that more cumbersome than going to circuit court? Yeah, but are you then denying somebody the process by not giving them the opportunity to appeal it?

If for Senate Bill 180, I would have it be even so that both sides get the same treatment. Um, and in Senate Bill 180 in the newspaper today, even in Orlando Sentinel, they reported that it will be amended. We don't know exactly how. So it may may make a difference uh once the session starts in January. So is that so I would my proposal is that to let the city attorney look into it and come back with okay proposal of of how to best make those adjustments. Again it almost it just seems like

it's like you said it's easier to come here than to fill out or to create the briefs that have to go to court. Well it's it's an extreme next step. It's it's like 10 levels up rather than just a intermediate. Yeah. To hire lawyers because you can't go to court typically on your own. Is it by type of of what's heard? Like at the board of adjustment, you could have a quasi judicial hearing, right? So like for development, I I think of the Donsrar um hotels redevelopment or addition of the ballroom that went through be the board of adjustment. Would you know could one of us motion that and say we want to bring it back? I mean it I think we could look at a board of adjustment quasa judicial items that are heard by them.

I'm not saying we have to. I'm just saying do we do all of them? Can you separate? Aren't those those go to the You can decide to separate if you want to depending on what it is that I don't think that one did though procedurally what's being heard. I was saying like normally the those go to the planning board because no the BOA heard the dons. Really? It was a variance. Yep. It may have been a variance. I think typically the hair variances were Yeah. Yeah. That I noticed. I went to every single one. Interesting. Yeah.

So, you could just make something to think of, I guess. Yeah.

So, we can bring something back to you with some options. All right. Reports. City clerk. I just want to note that the schedule for city commission meetings for 2026 was approved earlier this evening. As in prior years, regular meetings are planned for the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month with adjustments made to accommodate holidays. Please note that the September budget hearing dates are tentative and may be adjusted once the Penllis County Commission and Penllis County School Board finalize their respective budget hearings. Final budget hearing dates will be confirmed in accordance with statutory requirements to avoid overlapping with those taxing authorities. So those dates may change. Thank you, city manager.

I did want to announce that we partnered with Publix uh this I mean I'm sorry, Brickmore and Publix this week to uh provide some statements on their announcement to be they will be submitting a conditional use permit application for um a redevelopment of the space. We don't have details of that uh application yet, but as soon as we do have it, we will be starting to provide information to the community. They do think it's going to take several years to build the project out. So, just to set expectations, but I do believe it will be a very communitydriven and transparent process. So, we're excited to be partnering with um the developer as well as the public's to rebuild

and they'll be going through the regular CUP process. Yes, they will. There'll be a lot of there'll be community meetings, a lot of meetings. There'll be community input, a lot of meetings. We'll get to see plans. Yeah. I Yeah. So, from what they said is they they want to build two stories, parking in the bottom, similar to the Treasure Island, I guess. When I heard that, I'm like, that sounds great, but that's going to be two years minimum. So, just for anyone out there, that's that's the expectation. It's not going to be tomorrow. I wish. Um, on that note, how is the other small grocery store coming along? So, we do have a small grocery store applicant. They are heading to board of adjustment right now

for a sidewalk variance. So, if you're in support of having a small little spot here in the city, you may want to come out and support them in public comment. Um but uh so we're if once he passes that he's ready to open by November. Okay. And that's tomorrow at No, I'm sorry. By December. No, maybe November. He told me it's fast. He's like ready to go. Tomorrow [laughter] that board of adjustment meeting tomorrow at 2 p.m. Yes. [laughter] Tomorrow at 2 p.m. right here. Commission Chambers. [laughter and clears throat] See the attorney.

Nothing further this evening. Thank you for your uh working on the uh shade meeting and the issues that came up tonight. Thank you, sir. Uh District 4.

So, coincidentally, uh I've been having conversations with uh folks that are interested in serving in District 4. So, I'm going to lead by example and I'm going to announce that all positions are open in District 4 starting in November when my term starts. But I encourage everyone who's in there now as the incumbent to reapply. So I will be taking letters of resignation, holding on to them, and then we'll see. But I'd like to use it as a test bed to ensure that we have more transparency. So thank you to uh to the folks that brought that up.

District three. Um well, first I want to um it's almost like a sad note, but right now um the the island of Jamaica is going through a lot. So just to send out a prayer um to them um because we will see tomorrow I think some some major devastation um you know and always you know it could have been us, right? So you know my my heart goes out to all those people. Um, on the the other one with that is just to kind of put out a um I don't know how many people know about the recovery.panelis.gov um for Penllis County. There's over $800 million available um for residents. I think there's about five different programs if I remember correctly. Um, but to just make sure people are uh going out there and looking at the possibility of applying not only for things that you might want to do in the future, but things that you might have already done in the past. Um, so some of those programs do pay for um recovery of, you know, money spent renting uh an apartment or at a hotel. So there's a a lot in on that site. So that's recovery.panelis.gov. And then on a happier note is this Sunday the Dantesar uh neighborhood is celebrating their hundth uh celebration. Um and that was opened up to the whole entire city. Um but we were limited on space. So um I think they capped close to 150 uh people are going to be there uh this Sunday. Um and with that they also have November 13th a scheduled um uh association meeting for the neighborhood as well. Um Bel Vista has on November 6 at 6 pm um if you're interested in the I want to call it the

design would that be all right to say right Camden design of pump station 7. Um there'll be a discussion and maybe a a walk to to the pump station uh to talk about uh that design in Belle Vista. And I think that's it. Commissioner Robinson. Um just wanted to announce that I'm not having uh library hours in November due to holidays, etc. Um but I will plan to do something. I'll put it out in social media and I'll make an announcement on the next meeting. All right. District one, please.

Sure. So, I forgot to mention it at the last meeting, but I wanted to thank the parks and recck department for um the refurbish of the dog park at McKenna Park. The folks that uh live up near there and use the park all the time are hugely grateful. Um and the park looks great. Um and uh the beach nourishment is happening at Uppam Beach. So, um the the northern end of Uppam Beach is a little bit closed off, but it's going to be gigantic and beautiful very soon. Um and the uh uh the weather is going to be really super fantastic. So, come to the Sunday market on Sundays. Now, the uh the market's getting a little busier again. The weather's beautiful. Um it's a great thing to do on a Sunday. And then also, the Beach Theater has a great schedule of movies for the next couple months. So, if you're looking for something to do, make sure you hit them up. All right. Thank you everyone. We are adjourned.